Creativity characteristics portfolio

Get perfect grades by consistently using www.assignmentgeeks.org. Place your order and get a quality paper today. Take advantage of our current 20% discount by using the coupon code GET20


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

DIRECTIONS: After reviewing the module resources and the readings, complete the following assignment. If necessary, consult additional research. 

For this assignment, you will design a Creativity Characteristics Portfolio for you and your students. Design a creative presentation using a tool of your choice.

  1. Identify positive characteristics of creativity related to (1) cognitive (2) personal (3) biographical characteristics. Have three to five per category. Think about the characteristics and how students will identify with these characteristics. 
  2. Find individuals (famous people, book characters, movie characters, etc.) who display these characteristics and provide examples of what they have done to showcase the characteristic. For example, Oprah is resilient. Oprah has withstood significant hardships and adversity in her life, but she went on to become the first female African American billionaire.
  3. Include research that supports the characteristics selected as important in creative individuals and 
  4. creativity development. Include in-text citations and a reference page at the end.

Introduction: 

There is no single theory, definition, or identification of creativity or a creative person. Researches propose that creativity is an ability that is a combination of genetic and environmental factors. They have also identified characteristics that may be important in the development of creative potential. These include cognitive, personal, and biographical. Creative people can be distinguished by their values, temperament, motivations, and the way they think. Think for example of a creative musician you are familiar with. Then think of a creative mathematician, scientist, or physicist. They have varying characteristics such as risk-taking, independence, and curiosity. They can also have common patterns like motivation or task commitment. Since creativity manifests differently in people, we have no consistent or definitive way to assess or identify it. Therefore, we must look at and support the characteristics associated with creativity (Starko, 2022).

I have attached below class resources. Thank you

Şahin, Cogent Education (2016), 3: 1218315
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1218315

PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION & TRAINING | RESEARCH ARTICLE

General intelligence, emotional intelligence and
academic knowledge as predictors of creativity
domains: A study of gifted students
Feyzullah Şahin1*

Abstract: Creativity of the individual is dependent on numerous factors, such as
knowledge, general intelligence and emotional intelligence. The general pur-
pose of this study is to investigate the effect of general intelligence, emotional
intelligence and academic knowledge on the emerging of domain-specific cre-
ativity. The study was conducted on 178 intellectually gifted students who at-
tend high school. As a result of the study, correlations were determined between
the scholarly creativity domains and sociability, global emotional intelligence
(TEQ), science course, verbal and performance intelligence scores; mechani-
cal/scientific creativity and mathematics and science courses, well-being and
self-control; performance creativity and sociability; self/everyday creativity and
science courses, well-being, self-control, sociability and global TEQ; artistic cre-
ativity and sociability, and global TEQ. Moreover, researcher used a hierarchical
regression analysis to see whether independent variants predict the creativity
domains or not.

Subjects: Behavioural Management; Creativity; Gifted & Talented

Keywords: creativity domains; general intelligence; emotional intelligence; academic
knowledge; gifted students

*Corresponding author: Feyzullah Şahin,
Faculty of Education, Department
of Gifted Education Division, Duzce
University, Duzce, Turkey
E-mails: [email protected],
[email protected]

Reviewing editor:
John Lee, Hong Kong Institute of
Education, Hong Kong

Additional information is available at
the end of the article

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Feyzullah Şahin is an assistant professor in
the Department of Gifted Education Division,
The University of Duzce, Turkey. He is currently
the director of the master program for gifted
education at Duzce University. The researcher has
completed projects such as scientific creativity
among the gifted students, the mentorship
in the education of the gifted students in the
mixed education environments, mentorship
in developing creative thinking abilities, and
socio-emotional needs of gifted students. His
main research interest includes assessment of
giftedness, gifted teacher education, mentoring,
emotional intelligence of giftedness and creativity.
His works on these issues have appeared in
Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education,
Education and Science, Thinking Skills and
Creativity, etc.

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
Does creativity emerge generally or domain–
specifically? Namely; could Thomas Edison,
Architect Great Sinan or Picasso who became
prominent with their creative products in various
fields present creative products in the fields except
their own fields? To what extent the knowledge,
intelligence and emotional intelligence levels of
the aforementioned individuals play a role in the
field they study? Such questions are rather difficult
to give straight answers. In this study the aim is
to investigate the effect of general intelligence,
emotional intelligence, and academic achievement
on the emerging domain-specific creativity. As
results, it is determined that the relationship
between emotional intelligence sub-component
and general intelligence sub-score and knowledge
level and creativity sub-domains .

Received: 19 February 2016
Accepted: 26 July 2016
Published: 09 August 2016

© 2016 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution
(CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Page 1 of 16

Feyzullah Şahin

Page 2 of 16

Şahin, Cogent Education (2016), 3: 1218315
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1218315

1. Introduction
Many contemporary theories related to intelligence and creativity have been proposed in the litera-
ture and are constantly being substituted for earlier ones. Students are at the center of interest for
creativity, since they have skills for both inference and their position and they have creativity, emo-
tions and interpersonal skills. The results of the research, which are related to some factors affecting
creativity, are given below under subtitles.

1.1. General creativity vs. domain creativity
Does creativity emerge generally or is it domain–specific? Can people produce works creatively, like
Thomas Edison, Beethoven, or Picasso in the artistic domains or does the opposite situation occur?
The natural and sexual selection burden in the developmental strengths (such as genetic drift and
recombination) has been predominant in predisposing the human mind toward certain kinds of sen-
sations and functions. These functions are distinct structures and domains that solve distinct
problems.

There is much evidence for both the domain specificity and generality arguments. The general
creativity point of view posits that there are creative individuals in one domain, who should be able
to exhibit their creativity across other domains and that a general intellectual ability affects the
performance of the individual (e.g. Hocevar, 1980; Torrance, 2008). However, creativity researchers
started to shift from the traditional view of creativity in general toward the domain specific point of
view. Gardner (1983) indicated that the cognitive function should be considered as being composed
of a number of factors, with each factor functioning with regard to its own set of rules. An activity or
process may occur in more than one mental domain (Karolyi, Ramos-Ford, & Gardner, 2003). He
declared that outstanding responses were connected to specific domains that were involved with
different kinds of skills and distinct types of knowledge. In this regard, domain-specific creativity
studies used different tasks, such as writing stories and poems (Baer, 2003; Baer, Kaufman, & Gentile,
2004; Han, 2003) or storytelling (Baer, 1994), mathematics or word problems (Han, 2003; Sak & Ayas,
2013), musical compositions (Hickey, 2001) and collage making (Baer, 1994, 1996). However, the
results of research on whether creativity is domain-specific or not, are contradictory. In a group of
studies, the domain–specificity of creativity was supported (As for, Baer, et al., 2004; Hickey, 2001),
while contradictory results were obtained from another group of studies (Conti, Coon, & Amabile,
1996; Eunsook & Milgram, 2010).

1.2. Intelligence–creativity
The relationship between creative ability and intelligence can be explained by the threshold theory.
According to this theory, both concepts are related, but the relationship between the two is not lin-
ear across different levels of intelligence (Jauk, Benedek, Dunst, & Neubauer, 2013). In a meta-ana-
lytic study conducted by Kim (2005), who used 21 studies, it was reported that the empirical findings
did not support the threshold hypothesis. In a study by Şahin (2014), which examined the threshold
effect and employed seven experimental research papers, it was reported that the results of three
of them supported the theory, while four did not.

Some studies, which analyzed the relationship ignoring the aforementioned theory, could not
detect a correlation between creativity and intelligence (e.g. Plucker, 2010; Richmond, 1966; Yoon,
2005). Moreover, Şahin (2015) and Wallbrown, Wallbrown, and Wherry (1975) reported that a high
degree of separation was evident between these constructs. The relationship between divergent
thinking and cognitive competencies was analyzed within the context of general intelligence
(g factor) and fluent intelligence. In those studies, correlations were determined between divergent
thinking and general intelligence and (r = .34, .21, and .12; Batey, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furnham,
2009; Silvia, 2008; Furnham, 2015; respectively) and fluent intelligence (r = .43, .26 and .21; Batey
et al., 2009; Batey, Furnham, & Safiullina, 2010; Virgolim, 2005, respectively).

Page 3 of 16

Şahin, Cogent Education (2016), 3: 1218315
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1218315

1.3. Emotional intelligence–creativity
The root of TEQ can be dated back to the term of “social intelligence”, which was developed by
Thorndike (1920), to refer to the ability to understand and manage people and to act wisely in hu-
man relationships. Its direct roots lie in Gardner’s study on multiple intelligences, more categorically,
in his terms of intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligence (Petrides, 2011). Petrides (2011) found
that emotional intelligence structures could be comprehended as a trait of emotional intelligence
(TEQ), about emotion-related self-perceptions and ability emotional intelligence about emotion-re-
lated cognitive abilities. Thus, TEQ influences, directly or indirectly, a very wide range of variables in
creativity thinking skills.

Creativity thinking skills may emerge as both potential and performance factors. There are two
basic criteria for creativity potential. They are divergent thinking and the personal traits of the indi-
vidual (see meta-analysis by Feist, 1998; see review by Sak, 2009). In this study, the potential dimen-
sion of creativity was considered. The individuals with high levels of creativity differed from their
peers from the point of their personality traits, too (e.g. Clayton & Snelbecker, 2007). Among the
eighty-three studies on scientific and artistic creativity, a positive correlation was found between
extraversion, openness and neuroticism, while a negative correlation was found between agreea-
bleness and conscientiousness in a meta-analysis study (Feist, 1998). In another meta-analysis,
which included 12 studies, in which the creativity personality traits of the individuals whose fields of
interest were measured using the Big Six Interests by Larson, Rottinghaus, and Borgen (2002) were
compared to the Big Five Personality traits. Significant correlations were found between artistic and
openness (r = .48), enterprising and extraversion (r = .41), social and extraversion (r = .31), investiga-
tive and openness (r = .28), and social and agreeableness (r = .19). In a longitudinal study, which took
45 years and was conducted on 163 males by Soldz and Vaillant (1999), a positive affinity with open-
ness was determined (r = .40); while a negative relation was determined with adaptability (r = –.27).
They could not find any correlation that was determined in the other three personality traits.

Sánchez-Ruiz, Hernández-Torrano, Pérez-González, Batey, and Petrides (2011) determined posi-
tive and significant correlations between creative personality traits and extraversion and openness.
Moreover, negative, significant and slight correlations were determined between the Torrance think-
ing creativity test (TTCT) (figural form) total score and self-control (r = –.10), positive, significant and
slight correlations were determined with sociability (r  =  .03), and insignificant relations with well-
being, emotionality and global TEQ. In addition to this, Şahin, Özer, and Deniz (2016) determined
positive and significant correlations between sociability and scholarly mechanic/scientific perfor-
mance and art creativity domains (r = .24, .13, .21, .31, and .14, respectively) and self/everyday crea-
tivity and well-being, self-control, emotionality and global TEQ (r  =  .14, .19, .23, .31, and .28,
respectively). No significant correlation was determined among the other dimensions.

1.4. Knowledge–creativity
Creativity is accepted to be a domain for general everyday skills and it develops into domain specific
forms upon the acquisition and utilization of domain relevant skills and knowledge (Amabile, 1996).
In the process of general creativity, common sense knowledge, which is simple, general and rela-
tively unstructured, plays a major role. In contrast, in domain-specific creativity, domain specificity
and technical knowledge is the foundation of creativity (Ayas & Sak, 2014). Thus, a “deep explora-
tion” approach suggests that the originality of generated ideas is dependent on the degree to which
people engage in deep exploration of their knowledge (Rietzschel, Nijstad, & Stroebe, 2007).

Amabile (1983) also stated:

Knowledge organized according to general principles is of greater utility than specific,
narrowly applicable collections of facts. Likewise, performance information organized
according to general approaches to problems, rather than blind response algorithms,
should be more likely to contribute to high levels of creativity … an increase in domain–

Page 4 of 16

Şahin, Cogent Education (2016), 3: 1218315
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1218315

relevant skills can only lead to an increase in creativity, provided that the domain–relevant
information is organized appropriately … that larger stores of properly coded knowledge
increase the probability of outstanding responses.

Ward (2008) found that the stored domain-specific information tends to be used extensively while
developing a domain-specific product and 69% of the individuals used the old domain-specific infor-
mation while developing an original product. Academic achievement is an important criterion in
evaluating academic knowledge. The literature reveals numerous studies on the correlation be-
tween academic achievement and creativity. Some studies indicated the correlation between crea-
tivity and academic achievement (Bolindifar & Noordin, 2013; Powers & Kaufman, 2004), but some
studies could not find a correlation (Candrasekaran, 2013; Olatoye, Akintunde, & Ogunsanya, 2010).
In another study, which included 18 research papers conducted between 1960 and 1990, analyzed
the correlations between academic achievement and creativity. A correlation was found in seven of
them, while no correlation was determined in eight of them. In three studies, a correlation was de-
termined between the abilities of divergent thinking and productivity, which are necessary for high
academic achievement (Ai, 1999).

1.5. Present study
Affective and cognitive processes may influence creative abilities. Affective processes have been
investigated in studies, which have indicated that gifted and talented students may have different
characteristics from their peers, such as personal differences, like a drive for achievement, willing-
ness to exert themselves, perseverance, thirst for knowledge and inventiveness (Heller, 1991), also
having emotional intensity (Chan, 2000; Terman & Oden, 1976), having advanced levels of feelings
of humor and esthetics, they are into their independency (Endepohls-Ulpe & Ruf, 2005) and are in-
ternally motivated (Chan, 2000).

It was found in a meta-analysis that gifted students had more extravert characteristics (51.30%),
intuition (71.60%), thinking (53.80%) and perceiving (60.10%) personality traits than their peers
(Sak, 2004). In addition to this, the result of the Munich Giftedness longitudinal study indicated that
gifted students had better intelligence, creativity, social competence, artistic (musical), and psycho-
motor ability domains than their non-gifted peers (Heller, 1991). There is a large volume of available
literature, which states that they differ from their peers in their creativity levels (e.g. Preckel, Holling,
& Wiese, 2006; Runco, Millar, Acar, & Cramond, 2010; Şahin, 2014; Sligh, Conners, & Roskos-Ewoldsen,
2005) and their capacity for information processing.

On the other hand, the assessment and evaluation experts suggested that each group should be
evaluated independently from the others, since the data, which was collected from some subgroups
during the research, had values that were different from the general average (Hair, Hult, Ringle, &
Sarstedt, 2014). When the aforementioned theoretical aspects and the findings of research sum-
marized above are considered, the domain-specific creativity of the gifted students might differ from
their peers, thus, it would be better to establish the study group with the gifted students only.

There are numerous studies, which are related to the determination of general intelligence, emo-
tional intelligence, academic success and the correlations between them. However, there is only one
study, which analyzed the correlations between the aforementioned variants and scholarly, me-
chanic/scientific, performance, self/everyday and art creativity domains.

Gardner (1983) stated that cognition function should be accepted as being composed of several
factors, where each factor functions according to its own set of rules. He expressed that exceptional
responses were related to specific domains that required different kinds of skills and specific types
of knowledge. On the other hand, different suggestions were made in various studies, which were
related to the principles that should be formed according to creativity domains (Feist, 2004) or the
number of the existing domains (e.g. Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005; Kaufman & Baer, 2004a,
2004b; Kaufman, Evans, & Baer, 2010; Oral, Kaufman, & Agars, 2007; Rawlings & Locarnini, 2007).

Page 5 of 16

Şahin, Cogent Education (2016), 3: 1218315
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1218315

Kaufman (2012) suggested the creativity domains, which were analyzed in the study. Scholarly crea-
tivity would reflect Ivcevic and Mayer’s (2009) intellectual creativity, Feist’s (2004) linguistics and
Gardner’s (1999) linguistic intelligence. Mechanical/scientific creativity would cover Gardner’s logi-
cal—mathematical and naturalistic intelligences, Ivcevic and Mayer’s intellectual creativity, and
Carson et al. (2005) science factor. Performance includes Gardner’s bodily kinesthetic and musical
intelligence, Ivcevic and Mayer’s performance arts and Feist’s music. Self/everyday creativity would
cover Gardner’s ideas of interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence and Ivcevic and Mayer’s crea-
tive lifestyle. The art creativity theoretical framework would be Gardner’s spatial intelligence, Carson
and colleagues’ art factor, and Feist’s art.

The general purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of general intelligence (verbal,
performance and index score), emotional intelligence (well-being, self-control, emotionality, socia-
bility and global TEQ), and academic achievement (mathematics and science scores and grade point
average) on the emerging of domain-specific creativity (scholarly, mechanic/scientific, performance,
self/everyday and art). The answers will be sought for the following questions, within the context of
this general purpose:

(1) Is there any significant correlation between general intelligence, emotional intelligence, aca-
demic achievement of the gifted students and their domain-specific creativity?

(2) Does the general intelligence, emotional intelligence and academic achievement of the gifted
students significantly predict their domain-specific creativity?

2. Method

2.1. Participants
The study was conducted on 178 intellectually gifted students who attend high school during the
educational year of 2014–2015 and who fill the measurement instruments wholly and completely
and whose intelligence scores and academic achievement grades were obtained completely. The
students of the aforementioned school have the scores of +2 Sd or higher in at least one of WISC–R
IV verbal, performance or index scores. Moreover, they were determined to be free of adaptive and
behavioral problems during their enrolling to the school. Among the students, 85 of them (47.75%)
were female (22 of them at the ninth grade, 21 of them at the tenth grade, 17 of them at the elev-
enth grade and 25 of them at the twelfth grade) while 93 of them (52.25%) were male (28 of them
at the ninth grade, 19 of them at the tenth grade, 20 of them at the eleventh grade and 26 of them
at the twelfth grade).

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Kaufman domains of creativity scale (KDOCS–TR)
The scale developed by Kaufman (2012) was adapted into Turkish culture by Şahin (2016). As a result
of the adaptation process, a structure with five factors, which the structure in the original scale with
42 items was preserved, emerged. The scale is assessments according to self-evaluation method.
The scale is in five-point Likert form. The scores to be obtained from sub-dimensions are as follows;
5–55 for creativity, 7–35 for mechanic/ scientific, 9–45 for artistic performance and self/ everyday,
5–25 for art domain, and 42–201 for total scale. As a result of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA),
the fit indices of the model were above the average (χ2/df = 1.94, GFI = .78, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .06,
and SRMR = .07). The internal consistency reliability coefficient of KDOCS–TR was determined as .87
for the sub-factor of scholarly creativity, .84 for mechanical/scientific, .86 for performance, .77 for
self/ everyday, .83 for artistics, and .90 for total. In this study, KDOCS sub-dimensions are computed
between .78 and .86.

Page 6 of 16

Şahin, Cogent Education (2016), 3: 1218315
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1218315

2.2.2. Emotional intelligence specialty scale–short form (TEQ–SF)
TEQ–SF is a scale developed by Petrides and Furnham (Petrides & Furnham, 2000, 2001) based on the
conceptualization of emotional intelligence as “the trait of personal character” in order to determine
self perception levels of the individuals related to their emotional sufficiency. The scale was adapted
into Turkish culture by Deniz, Özer, and Işık (2013). As a result of adaptation, a structure with 20
items and four factors was established. The fit indices confirm the validity of the structure (χ2/
df = 2.46, GFI = .95, AGFI = .92, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .056, and SRMR = .060). The internal consistency
reliability coefficient of TEQ–SF was found .72 for well-being, .70 for self-control, .66 for emotionality,
.70 for sociability and .81 for the whole while test–repeat test reliability coefficient was found .86
(Deniz et al., 2013). In this study, TEQ–SF sub-dimensions Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency co-
efficient values are computed between .60 and .67.

2.2.2.1. Wechsler intelligence scale for children–R IV (WISC–R IV). The notion that one-dimension-
al intelligence is a measurement tool provided a basis for the development of WISC–R. Wechsler
developed it in 1949 and revised in 1974. The test was complied to Turkish by Savaşır and Şahin
(1994, cit. Tan, Soysal, Aldemir, & Işık, 2012) for 6–16 age group. Split half-test reliability was calcu-
lated as .97 for index score. It was found that there was a correlation between sub-tests between .51
and .86. WISCR–IV Guttman split-half reliability was determined as .87.

2.2.2.2. Academic achievement grades. The academic knowledge levels of the students were eval-
uated within the context of academic achievement grades. Grade point average score was calcu-
lated from the average of grades from the courses of science, mathematics, literacy, ethics, social
science, arts and the optional courses. The grades were calculated through the system of 100. The
grade point average and science courses’ Guttman split-half reliability was computed as .82, and
.86, respectively.

2.2.3. Procedure
KDOCS and TEQ–SF were applied to the students who were voluntary in the evening courses. The
results of the intelligence tests are the results of individual results of the tests conducted while their
application for enrolling the school. Academic achievement scores are the grades obtained at the
end of autumn term in the 2014–2015 education years. Both scores were obtained from the school
administration.

2.2.4. Data analysis
The data, which was obtained from the participants, was transferred to the computer and analyzed
using the SPSS (16.00) statistical analysis software program. The data-set was primarily evaluated in
terms of missing values and normality assumptions. Accordingly, no missing value was observed,
while the normal distribution assumptions of Kurtosis and Skewness coefficients were found. In
seeking for answers to the first sub-question of the study, Pearson’s correlation test was employed
and the analysis of the forward method multiple hierarchical regression was used for the second
sub-question. In the regression analysis, the VIF and Tolerance coefficients for the sub-fields of
scholarly, mechanical/scientific, performance, self/everyday and art creativity were determined as
1.014–.986, 1.041–.961, 1.009–.991, 1.042–.875, and 1.009–.991, respectively. These results indicate
that there are no multiple linear relationships among the independent variants.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive statistics and correlations
Mean, standard deviation, Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficients and Pearson’s correla-
tions for all variables in this study are presented in Table 1. Significant and positive correlations were
observed between scholarly and sociability, global TEQ, science course, WIS–R IV verbal and perfor-
mance (r = .41, and .20, p < .01; r = .15, .18, and .16, p < .05, respectively); Mechanical/scientific and
mathematics and science course scores, well-being and self-control (r = .11, .25, p < .05; r = .17, and
.25, p < .01, respectively); Performance and sociability (r = .23, p < .01; r = .17, p < .05, respectively);

Page 7 of 16

Şahin, Cogent Education (2016), 3: 1218315
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1218315

self/ everyday and science course scores, well-being, self-control, sociability and global TEQ (r = .20,
.34, .05, .33, and .28, p < .01, respectively); art and sociability and global TEQ (r = .26, and .20, p < .01).
On the other hand, a significant and negative correlation was determined between mechanical/sci-
entific and emotionality (r  =  –.18, p  <  .05), performance and art and mathematics course scores
(r = –.17 –.20, p < .05).

3.2. Multiple regressions
To examine the extent to which general intelligence, emotional intelligence, course scores and
grade point average scores could predict variance in creativity subdomains, a series of forward

Table 1. Descriptive statistics, reliability and Pearson inter—correlation for all measures

Note: N = 178.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.

    M SD α 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
KDOCS 1. Schol-

arly
39.32 7.82 .86 – .12 .38** .44** .40** .08* –.06 .09 .08 .09 .07 .41** .20** .18* .16* .02

2. Me-
chani-
cal/sci-
entific

21.92 6.83 .86   – .05 .30** .41** .11* .25* .11 .17** .25** –.18* .01 .14 .02 .05 .09

3.
Perfor-
mance

30.01 8.40 .85     – .30** .30** .12 –.17* –.06 .11 .04 –03 .23** .08 .01 –.10 .02

4. Self/
every-
day

33.57 5.97 .78       – .34** .20** .05 –.15 .34** .05** –.03 .33** .28** .11 .06 .06

5. Art 17.32 4.92 .81         – –.02 –.20* –.06 .11 .07 .13 .26** .20** –.05 .12 .05

Course
scores

6. Sci-
ence

84.12 7.92 –           – .60** .81** .15* –.01 –.06 .01 .18* .03 .09 .04

7. Math-
ematic

78.08 14.48 –             – .79** .12 .12 –.10 –.10 .02 .05 –.05 –.03

8. Grade
point
average

83.87 6.58 –               – .17* .02 –.06 –.01 .12 .09 .01 .01

TEQ–SF 9. Well-
being

19.12 4.44 .62                 – .13 –.05 .29** .32** –.01 .13 .09

10. Self-
control

15.69 3.62 .61                   – .15* .16* .19** .03 .01 .13

11.
Emo-
tionality

15.47 3.71 .60                     – .24** .15 –.07 .12 .04

12. So-
ciability

17.88 3.79 .67                       – .41** –.08 .09 .01

13.
Global
EQ

16.94 3.78 .63                         – –.06 .10 .03

WISC–R
IV

14.
Verbal

123.68 5.63 –                           – –.07 .56**

15.
Perfor-
mance

134.57 7.25 –                             – .69**

16.
Index
score

132.28 4.72 –                               –

Page 8 of 16

Şahin, Cogent Education (2016), 3: 1218315
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1218315

method multiple hierarchical regressions were performed. Therefore, WISC–R were the verbal, the
performance, and the index scores, TEQ were the well-being, self-control, emotionality, sociability
and global TEQ scores, course scores of the science and mathematics courses, and the grade point
averages were regressed onto each of the five different creativity domain-dependent variables. The
results of these analyses are presented in Table 2. The variants, which did not provide significant
contributions, were excluded from the table.

WISC–R IV verbal and performance scores provide a significant contribution to the regression
model, which was established to clarify scholarly creativity. Sociability solely  predicts the .17% of
variance (F(1, 176) = 36.49, p < .01), .21% of it with WISC–R IV verbal (F(2, 175) = 23.99, p < .01), and .24%
of it with three of them (F(3, 174)  =  19.30, p  <  .01). Self-control, mathematics and emotionality can
significantly explain the mechanical/scientific domain. Self-control can solely  predict the .06% of
variance (F(1, 177) = 11.81, p < .01), .10% of it with mathematics (F(2, 175) = 11.10, p < .01) and .14% of it
when the emotionality is included (F(2, 175)  =  10.28, p  <  .01). Sociability and mathematics provide
significant contributions to the performance. Sociability can solely  predict .05% of the variance
(F(1, 177) = 9.80, p < .01), while it can predict .06% of it when mathematics is included (F(2, 175) = 7.07,
p  <  .01). Well-being, sociability and science courses can significantly explain the self/everyday
variable. Only, well-being can predict .11% of the variance (F(1, 177) = 23.57, p < .01), .17% of it when
sociability is included (F(2, 175)  =  18.80, p  <  .01) and .19% in with science (F(3, 174)  =  14.78, p  <  .01).
Sociability and mathematics courses provide significant contributions to the model established to
clarify art. Sociability can solely explain .06% of it (F(1, 176) = 12.97, p < .01), while it may explain .09%
of it when accompanied with mathematics (F(2, 175) = .50, p < .01).

4. Discussion
First of all, the relationships between the subdomains of creativity and general intelligence, emo-
tional intelligence and academic achievement were analyzed in the study. Then, we examined
whether the aforementioned variants predict the creativity subdomains or not. The findings related
to the sub-questions of the research are given in the subtitles below in the given rank.

4.1. Scholarly creativity
Modest level correlations were determined between this domain and the science course score,
WISC–R IV verbal, and WISC–R IV performance, while moderate level correlations were determined
with this domain and sociability and global TEQ. In the regression analysis, it was found that socia-
bility, WISC–R IV verbal, and WISC–R IV performance scores provided significant contributions to the
model and the three of them were able to predict 0.24% of the variance. According to Gardner’s
analysis, only two forms of intelligence, such as linguistic and logical mathematical intelligence,
may be considered to be beneficial and are useful for that language—logic combination as “aca-
demic” or “scholarly intelligence” (Davis, Christodoulou, Seider, & Gardner, 2012). According to Feist
(2004), the ability of language is the perceptive ability to achieve syntactical and semantic rules of
language, in addition to the ability to use sentences spontaneously, in a novel and flexible way.
Kaufman (2012) asserted that intellectual abilities play a significant role in the emerging of creativ-
ity in the domain of scholarly creativity. In this study, the existence of a significant relationship
between the verbal and performance dimensions of the intelligence test indicates that there is a
close correlation between this domain and the field of intellectual abilities. Moreover, the results of
the Munich Giftedness longitudinal study also support these findings. It was reported that highly
intelligent students received greater results in extracurricular activities in the field of science than
their peers who had average or high creativity (Heller, 1991).

Şahin et al. (2016) determined a modest level correlation (r  =  .24) between the scholarly and
sociability variables, too. The variance explained at the end of hierarchical regression analysis was
reported as .07%. The results of the study by Sánchez-Ruiz et al. (2011), indirectly supported the
findings of this study. The researchers determined that there was a significant modest correlation
between general creativity and sociality, but an insignificant correlation between global TEQ, well-
being, self-control, and emotionality. In both the research studies, no significant correlations were

Page 9 of 16

Şahin, Cogent Education (2016), 3: 1218315
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1218315

determined between scholarly and global TEQ. The significant correlations with the other dimen-
sions are parallel to the results of this study, while the findings related to global TEQ are contradic-
tory to the findings of this study.

Table 2. Multiple regression analysis of creativity domains

Note: N = 178. All of the F and t values are significant at the level of p < .01.

      β t
Scholarly 1. Sociability .41 6.04

F(1, 176) = 36.49 Adj. R
2 = .17

2. Sociability .43 6.42

WISC–R IV verbal .21 3.11

F(2, 175) = 23.99 Adj. R
2 = .21

3. Sociability .45 6.76

WISC–R IV verbal .20 2.99

WISC–R IV performance .19 2.83

F(3, 174) = 19.30 Adj. R
2 = .24

Mechanical/scientific 1. Self–control .25 3.34

F(1, 176) = 11.81 Adj. R
2 = .06

2. Self-control .22 3.13

Mathematic .22 3.13

F(2, 175) = 11.10 Adj. R
2 = .10

3. Self-control .26 3.60

Mathematic .20 2.84

Emotionality –.20 –2.79

F(3, 174) = 10.28 Adj. R
2 = .14

Performance 1. Sociability .23 3.13

F(1, 176) = 9.80 Adj. R
2 = .05

2. Sociability .22 2.95

Mathematic –.15 –2.04

F(2, 175) = 7.07 Adj. R
2 = .06

Self/everyday 1. Well–being .34 4.85

F(1, 176) = 23.57 Adj. R
2 = .11

2. Well-being .27 3.77

Sociability .25 3.53

F(2, 175) = 18.80 Adj. R
2 = .17

3. Well-being .24 3.41

Sociability .26 3.67

Science .16 2.39

F(3, 174) = 14.78 Adj. R
2 = .19

Art 1. Sociability .26 3.60

F(1, 176) = 12.97 Adj. R
2 = .06

2. Sociability .25 3.41

Mathematic –.17 –.2.38

F(2, 175) = 9.50 Adj. R
2 = .09

Page 10 of 16

Şahin, Cogent Education (2016), 3: 1218315
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1218315

According to Ivcevic and Mayer (2009), science is one of the three sub-dimensions of intellectual
creativity, while the other is academic orientation. The science factor is described as involvement
and accomplishment in science. Academic orientation refers to an active pursuit of advanced edu-
cational opportunities. This similarity is thought to support the emerging of a significant correlation
between the scholarly variable and the science score.

4.2. Mechanical/scientific creativity
A positive correlation was determined between mechanical/scientific creativity and the mathemat-
ics and science scores. The results of the regression analysis indicate that self-control, mathematics,
and emotionality scores can predict .14% of the variance, while the other dependent variables pro-
vide no significant support. Gardner’s logical–mathematic intelligence is the ability to think concep-
tually and abstractly, with the capacity to discern logical and numerical patterns. According to the
researcher, the correlation between the mathematics score and this domain is an expected one.
Moreover, the first two factors, which have been mentioned above, constitute Ivcevic and Mayer’s
intellectual creativity field, which directly explains the science score but indirectly explains the
mathematical scores. The third field that forms intellectual creativity is technology. It is described as
behavior related to mathematics and engineering. These sub-factors may also indirectly explain the
correlation with mathematical scores.

In our study, a positive correlation was also determined between well-being and self-control and
negative and emotionality variables. It can be concluded that these results are parallel to the results
of the former studies, in which a correlation between creative personality traits and creative perfor-
mance were analyzed (e.g. Feist, 1998; Furnham & Bachtiar, 2008; Ivcevic & Mayer, 2009; Soldz &
Vaillant, 1999). In other words, general features, such as openness to experiences, extraversion,
high levels of self-awareness, persistency, resisting external pressures and taking risks, which sub-
stantially overlap well-being and self-control are exhibited by individuals with high creativity. On the
other hand, some of the behavior, which is under emotionality, partly overlaps the behavior de-
scribed as the obstacles facing creativity (Sak, 2009).

In addition to this, Şahin, Özer and Deniz determined significant correlations between mechanical/
scientific creativity and sociability, while insignificant correlations were determined between self-
control, well-being, emotionality and global TEQ. In the study by Sánchez-Ruiz et al. (2011), a posi-
tive correlation was observed between creative personalities and well-being and self-control, while
a negative correlation was found between TTCT total scores and self-control. No significant relation-
ship was determined between TTCT total scores and well-being and emotionality. The result of this
study is contradictory to the correlations reported in the aforementioned studies. According to the
researcher, the reasons for these contradictory results should be analyzed in detail in another study.

4.3. Performance creativity
A positive correlation was determined between performance creativity and sociability, while a nega-
tive correlation was determined with the mathematics course score. It was also determined that
only those two variants contributed to the regression analysis and could predict .06% of the vari-
ance. Considering the theoretical context, performance and sociability consisted of parallel traits.
Feist (2004) defined music as the capability to produce, perceive and appreciate rhythmic and me-
lodic sounds that elicit an emotional response in oneself and others. Ivcevic and Mayer (2009) pos-
ited that performance arts consists of those having performance skills enabling them to enter public
competitions, such as dance competitions, being a member of dance team, playing music in public,
or participating in band competitions, etc. According to Gardner (1999), musical intelligence is the
ability to produce and appreciate music and consists of competencies in musical abilities, such as
rhythm, pitch and timber. Sociability emphasizes social network and social impact (Petrides, 2011).

Şahin, Deniz and Özer determined a positive correlation between sociability and performance so-
ciality, which was able to predict the .07% of the performance creativity. Their research results are
parallel to the results of this study. A negative correlation between the mathematical course score

Page 11 of 16

Şahin, Cogent Education (2016), 3: 1218315
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1218315

and performance domain is parallel to the findings of the study by Jeon, Moon, and French (2011),
who contrasted forecasters of creative performance in art and mathematics. It was found that the
significance of domain knowledge was higher than divergent thinking for mathematics creativity;
however, art had a contrary pattern.

4.4. Self/everyday creativity
It was determined that there was a significant correlation between the self/everyday creativity vari-
able and science score, well-being, self-control, sociability and global TEQ and the domains, except
self-control, could provide significant contributions in the regression model, which could clarify .19%
of the variance. According to Petrides (2011), the roots of emotional intelligence date back to
Gardner’s interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence. The aforementioned types of intelligence
have been an inspiration to Kaufman (2012), while developing self/everyday creativity. He asserted
that the creativity subdomains are expected to employ the majority of the correlations between self/
everyday creativity and emotional intelligence. This theoretical ground may have revealed the cor-
relation between well-being, self-control, sociability and global TEQ and intra–personal and TEQ,
which is also called an interpersonal intelligence domain (Petrides, 2011).

A study related to the topic supports this theoretical interpretation; Şahin, Özer and Deniz, deter-
mined a correlation between self/everyday creativity and well-being, self-control, emotionality, so-
ciability, and global TEQ. The study conducted by Sancez–Ruiz and their colleagues indirectly
supports the findings of this research. The researchers reported a positive correlation between the
total score of general creativity and well-being, emotionality, sociability, and global TEQ, while a
negative correlation was determined with self-control. The findings obtained from this study com-
pletely overlap the research findings of Şahin, Özer, and Deniz, except emotionality, while they over-
lap the research findings of Sancez–Ruiz and their colleagues, except for self-control.

In our study, the existence of a correlation between the science course and self/everyday creativ-
ity was proved. According to the researcher, this finding is one of the most surprising results of the
study. In the science courses, activities such as hypothesizing and conducting experiments were
enjoyed by the gifted students (Terman & Oden, 1976). These skills support creativity in the other
domains, such as mechanical/scientific or scholarly creativity. Thus, the impression that domain-
specific skills support the skills in different creativity domains was formed. However, this topic should
be analyzed in detail in order to support that conclusion.

4.5. Art creativity
A positive correlation was found between art and sociability and global TEQ, while a negative mod-
est correlation was found with the mathematical course scores. In the regression analysis, it was
found that the sociability and mathematics scores provided significant contributions to the model
and both of them could clarify .09% of the variance. Şahin et al. (2016) reported that there was a
correlation at the modest level between art and sociability only. The findings of our research con-
form to the findings of Şahin, Deniz and Özer.

On the other hand, the results obtained from Jeon et al. (2011), which were mentioned in the do-
main of performance; also explain the negative and significant correlation between the art and
mathematical scores. According to Jeon and colleagues, the mathematical field information also
negatively influences creativity in the domain of art. Our findings are consistent with the findings of
Jeon, Moond and French.

5. Conclusion
The findings obtained from the study may be classified into two subtitles. The first is the relationship,
which emerged specifically to definite creativity domains and the second one is the creativity do-
main, which is associated with more than one variant. The negative and significant correlation be-
tween emotionality and the mechanical/scientific sub-dimensions of emotional intelligence may be
given as an example of the first group.

Page 12 of 16

Şahin, Cogent Education (2016), 3: 1218315
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1218315

Higher emotionality scores among the individuals can be interpreted as the skills of the individuals
related to the emotions, which are rather more developed, and the emotions are effectively em-
ployed in perceiving and explaining their feelings and establishing and developing relationships with
very important people. In a study by Feist (1998) which he compared the scientists to the nonscien-
tists; it was found that scientists were half a standard deviation higher than nonscientists on traits
of aggressive, cold, egocentric, impersonal, impulsive, antisocial, emphatic and tough-minded.
Helson (1996) discussed that creative architects, college graduates in artistic and investigative do-
mains, mathematicians, and writers of imaginative literature can be reliably distinguished based on
their personality type employing the California Psychological Inventory. For instance, architects have
high energy, they are goal-oriented. Mathematicians are introverted, prefer solitary work. Writers of
imaginative literature are also norm-doubting, but they experience internal struggles. The findings
obtained from this study are not consistent with literature. According to the researcher, this result is
rather surprising. The causes of those findings should be analyzed in further and detailed studies.

One of the common findings, which emerged under the topics given previously, is the nonexist-
ence of any correlations between intelligence and creativity. In the literature, there are findings re-
porting the nonexistence of a relationship between self-rated creativity and intelligence (Furnham &
Bachtiar, 2008; Furnham, Batey, Anand, & Manfield, 2008). No correlation was found between crea-
tivity and intelligence in the other domains, except the scholarly one. This finding is parallel to the
findings in the literature. Furthermore, a longitudinal study by Perleth and Sierwald (2001, cit. Heller,
2007) demonstrated that highly creative individuals in the domains of art, social skills, and theater
achieved higher results than averagely creative people.

The relationships between mechanical/scientific creativity and the mathematics and science
courses may be regarded as a general finding. Mathematics provides positive contributions to the
creativity studies conducted in the domain of mechanical/scientific creativity. When the creative
studies in the technical domains are compared to those in the artistic domain, they are seen to be
more intensive (e.g. Amabile, 1983, 1996; Rietzschel et al., 2007; Ward, 2008).

The positive relationship between the science course and mechanical/scientific creativity confirms
this perspective. Even if it is minor, a negative relationship was determined between mathematics
and the art-dominated domains called performance and art. Of course, the individuals in the do-
mains of art and science do not share similar personal traits (Feist, 1998). One of the theoretical
structures, which the art creativity domain is based on, is the field of spatial intelligence (Gardner,
1999). The aforementioned field of intelligence consists of the skills of the individual, such as objec-
tive observation or the displaying of visual and spatial ideas in graphics. There is a vast quantity of
literature, which is related to the positive relationships between the visual–spatial abilities and
achievement in mathematics. Within this context, the negative correlation between mathematics
and art is very surprising. However, in the 18 studies reviewed by Ai (1999) where he analyzed the
relationships between creativity and academic achievement, a significant relationship was obtained
from seven studies, while the other eight had no significant relationship. According to the research-
er, the reason for obtaining such results may be the contents of the creativity subdomains and the
fields measured within the context of academic achievement, although it may be domain-specific.

The positive relationship between sociability, which is one of the sub-dimensions of emotional
intelligence, and all the domains except the mechanical/scientific domain, may be given as an
example of general results. This finding largely corresponds to the findings of the study in which
Şahin et al. (2016), who analyzed the relationships between gifted high school students and the
emotional intelligence sub-dimensions and the subdomains analyzed in this study. In the aforemen-
tioned study, positive relationships were determined between the sociability and creativity subdo-
mains of scholarly, mechanic/scientific, performance, self/everyday and art creativity. Sociability
emphasizes social relationships and social effects and includes the positive relationships with family
and close friends. Namely, it is expected that the individuals who are strong and effective in social
relationships have higher scores than the others. The achievement of the individuals in the

Page 13 of 16

Şahin, Cogent Education (2016), 3: 1218315
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1218315

aforementioned field is closely related to the levels of attitudes displayed, such as social, social pres-
ence, active and gregarious. These attitudes are also defined under the extraversion personality
traits among the big five personality traits. Extraversion also contributes to the creativity of individu-
als (Furnham & Bachtiar, 2008; Furnham et al., 2008; Larson et al., 2002). Moreover, the attitudes,
such as being friendly, agreeable, emphatic, parental, peaceful, cooperative, communality and affili-
ative attitudes are defined under the agreeable trait, which is one of the big five personality traits.
The individuals displaying these traits may be expected to have higher sociability scores.

The aforementioned traits are related to the creative personality traits of the individuals. Although
no measurement was conducted in this study to determine the relationship between the big five
personality traits and emotional intelligence, consistent results are expected with the measurement
instrument employed in this study when the principle of the consistency and uniformity of the per-
sonality structure of the individual is considered. However, when analyzing this anticipation, the
existence of a relationship between sociability and extraversion and agreeable traits will provide a
clearer interpretation.

When the findings of the study mentioned above are considered in general, it can be said that the
creativity responses of the individual occur, dependent on some competences, which may be classi-
fied under cognitive and extra cognitive processes and a series of interactions that are non–linear on
every occasion (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991). The interactions between these characteristics do not
always emerge at the same level. A characteristic, which creates synergy in a technical domain, may
trigger controversial results in another domain, such as art.

The assessment of creativity through a self-rated method is an important limit of the study be-
cause, the self-rated method has some problems, such as inattentively filling the responses by its
very nature (Silvia, Wigert, Reiter-Palmon, & Kaufman, 2012) or high/ low scores obtained from the
evaluation instrument parallel to the responses of the teachers (Beghetto, 2006). However, this
method is extremely informative on the occasions where no information is available on the levels of
the participants (Kaufman et al., 2010; Şahin & Şahin, 2012, 2013). In order to avoid this limitation,
some precautions should be given, such as giving the students enough time, explaining the results
individually and excluding the extreme values from the analysis.

It is important to note from this study that any researchers who are planning to study this topic
should consider that no correlation occurred between the grade point average and creativity; thus,
the other course scores could mask the grade point average. Hence, employing the course grades
related to the analyzed domains, rather than the grade point average, will provide more explanatory
results. The study was conducted with a group of gifted high school students. Thus, analyzing the
differences between groups through a study including their non-gifted peers may provide more com-
prehensive information. According to the researcher, the researchers who are interested in the topic
should also seek for answers to this question from the results, which emerged from this study: al-
though general intelligence, emotional intelligence and academic achievement may predict some
parts of domain-specific creativity between .06 and .24, what are the other variants affecting other
parts of the variance? The researchers who are interested in the topic may execute a study to com-
pare those who achieve academically and those who underachieve and those with higher emotional
intelligence levels and those with lower levels and provide detailed information related to the topic.
Moreover, using a measurement instrument in another study, which employs divergent thinking abili-
ties instead of a self-rated evaluation instrument, may provide deeper information about the topic.

Page 14 of 16

Şahin, Cogent Education (2016), 3: 1218315
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1218315

Funding
The author received no direct funding for this research.

Author details
Feyzullah Şahin1

E-mails: [email protected], [email protected]
1 Faculty of Education, Department of Gifted Education

Division, Duzce University, Duzce, Turkey.

Citation information
Cite this article as: General intelligence, emotional
intelligence and academic knowledge as predictors of
creativity domains: A study of gifted students, Feyzullah
Şahin, Cogent Education (2016), 3: 1218315.

References
Ai, X. (1999). Creativity and academic achievement: An

investigation of gender differences. Creativity Research
Journal, 12, 329–337.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1204_11

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity:
A componential conceptualization. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357–376.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social
psychology of Creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Ayas, M. B., & Sak, U. (2014). Objective measure of scientific
creativity: Psychometric validity of the creative scientific
ability test. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 13, 195–205.
doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2014.06.001

Baer, J., Kaufman, J. C., & Gentile, C. A. (2004). Extension of the
consensual assessm ent technique to nonparallel creative
products. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 113–117.
doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1601_11

Baer, J. (1994). Divergent thinking is not a general trait: A
multidomain training experiment. Creativity Research
Journal, 7, 35–46. doi:10.1080/10400419409534507

Baer, J. (1996). The effects of task-specific divergent-thinking
training. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 30, 183–187.
doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1996.tb00767.x

Baer, J. (2003). The impact of the core knowledge curriculum
on creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 297–300. doi:
10.1080/10400419.2003.9651422

Batey, M., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2009).
Intelligence and personality as predictors of divergent
thinking: The role of general, fluid and crystallised
intelligence. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4, 60–69.
doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2009.01.002

Batey, M., Furnham, A., & Safiullina, X. (2010). Intelligence,
general knowledge and personality as predictors of
creativity. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 532–
535. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.04.008

Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative self-efficacy: Correlates in
middle and secondary students. Creativity Research
Journal, 18, 447–457. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1804_4

Bolindifar, S., & Noordin, N. (2013). Investigating the
relationship between creativity and academic
achievement of Malaysian undergraduates. Jurnal
Teknologi (Social Science), 65, 101–107.

Candrasekaran, S. (2013). Creativity and academic
achievement of higher secondary school students in
Tamilnadu. International Journal of Humanities and Social
Science Invention, 3, 32–36.

Carson, S., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability,
validity, and factor structure of the creative achievement
questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 37–50.
doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1701_4

Chan, D. W. (2000). Exploring identification procedures of
gifted students by teacher ratings: Parent ratings and
student self-reports in Hong Kong. High Ability Studies, 11,
69–82. doi:10.1080/713669176

Clayton, C., & Snelbecker, G. (2007). General, artistic and
scientific creativity attributes of engineering and music
students. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 213–225.
doi:10.1080/10400410701397271

Conti, R., Coon, H., & Amabile, T. M. (1996). Evidence to support
the componential model of creativity: Secondary analyses
of three studies. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 385–389.
doi:10.1207/s15326934crj0904_9

Davis, K., Christodoulou, C., Seider, S., & Gardner, H. (2012). The
theory of multiple intelligences. In R. J. Sternberg & J. C.
Kaufman (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of ıntelligence
(pp. 485–503). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University
Press.

Deniz, M. E., Özer, E., & Işık, E. (2013). Duygusal Zekâ Özelliği
Ölçeği-Kısa Formu: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması
[Trait emotional ıntelligence questionnaire-short form:
Validity and reliability studies]. Education and Science, 38,
407–419.

Endepohls-Ulpe, M., & Ruf, H. (2005). Primary school teachers’
criteria for the ıdentification of gifted pupils. High Ability
Studies, 16, 219–228. doi:10.1080/13598130600618140

Eunsook, H., & Milgram, R. M. (2010). Creative thinking ability:
Domain generality and specificity. Creativity Research
Journal, 22, 272–287. doi:10.1080/10400419.2010.503
535

Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific
and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 2, 290–309. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5

Feist, G. J. (2004). The evolved fluid specificity of human
creative talent. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J.
L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization
(pp. 57–82). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10692-000

Furnham, A. (2015). The bright and dark side correlates of
creativity: Demographic, ability, personality traits and
personality disorders associated with divergent thinking.
Creativity Research Journal, 27, 39–46. doi:10.1080/10400
419.2015.992676

Furnham, A., & Bachtiar, V. (2008). Personality and intelligence
as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual
Differences, 45, 613–617. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.023

Furnham, A., Batey, M., Anand, K., & Manfield, J. (2008).
Personality, hypomania, intelligence and creativity.
Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1060–1069.
doi:10.1016/J.Paid.10.035

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple
intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligence
for the 21st century. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014).
A primer on partial least squares structural equation
modeling (PLS−SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Han, K. (2003). Domain-specificity of creativity in young
children: How quantitative and qualitative data support
it. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 37, 117–142.
doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2003.tb00829.x

Heller, K. A. (1991). The nature and development of giftedness:
A longitudinal study. European Journal of High Ability, 2,
174–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0937445910020207

Heller, K. A. (2007). Scientific ability and creativity. High Ability
Studies, 18, 209–234. doi:10.1080/13598130701709541

Helson, R. (1996). A in search of the creative personality.
Creativity Research Journal, 9, 295–306.

Hickey, M. (2001). An application of amabile’s consensual
assessment technique for rating the creativity of
children’s musical compositions. Journal of Research in
Music Education, 49, 234–244. doi:10.2307/3345709

Hocevar, D. (1980). Intelligence, divergent thinking and
creativity. Intelligence, 4, 25–40.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896(80)90004-5

Page 15 of 16

Şahin, Cogent Education (2016), 3: 1218315
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1218315

Ivcevic, Z., & Mayer, J. D. (2009). Mapping dimensions of
creativity in the life-space. Creativity Research Journal, 21,
152–165. doi:10.1080/10400410902855259

Jauk, E., Benedek, M., Dunst, B., & Neubauer, A. C. (2013).
The relationship between intelligence and creativity:
New support for the threshold hypothesis by means of
empirical breakpoint detection. Intelligence, 41, 212–221.
doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.03.003

Jeon, K. N., Moon, S. M., & French, B. (2011). Differential effects
of divergent thinking, domain knowledge, and interest on
creative performance in art and math. Creativity Research
Journal, 23, 60–71. doi:10.1080/10400419.2011.545750

Karolyi, C. V., Ramos-Ford, V., & Gardner, H. (2003). Multiple
intelligences: A perspective on giftedness. In N. Colangelo
& G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.,
pp. 100−112). Boston, MA: Sage.

Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development
of the Kaufman domains of creativity scale (K-DOCS).
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 298–
308. doi:10.1037/a0029751

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004a). Sure, i’m creative—but
not in mathematics!: Self-reported creativity in diverse
domains. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22, 143–155.
doi:10.2190/26HQ-VHE8-GTLN-BJJM

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004b). The amusement park
theoretical model of creativity. The Korean Journal of
Thinking & Problem Solving, 14, 15–25.

Kaufman, J. C., Evans, M., & Baer, J. (2010). The American
idol effect: Are students good judges of their creativity
across domains? Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28, 3–17.
doi:10.2190/EM.28.1.b

Kim, K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? A
meta–analysis. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16,
57–66.

Larson, L. M., Rottinghaus, P. J., & Borgen, F. H. (2002). Meta–
analyses of big six interests and big five personality
factors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 217–239.
doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1854

Olatoye, R. A., Akintunde, S. O., & Ogunsanya, E. A. (2010).
Relationship between creativity and academic
achievement of business administration students in
South Western Polytechnics. Nigeria. African Research
Journal, 4, 134–149

Oral, G., Kaufman, J. C., & Agars, M. D. (2007).
Examining creativity in Turkey: Do Western
findings apply? High Ability Studies, 18, 235–246.
doi:10.1080/13598130701709590

Petrides, K. V. (2011). Ability and trait emotional
intelligence. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, A. Furnham, &
S. von Stumm (Eds.), The blackwell–wiley handbook
of individual differences (pp. 656–678). New York, NY:
Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781444343120.ch25

Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional
structure of emotional intelligence. Personality and
Individual Differences, 29, 313–320. doi:10.1016/
S0191-8869(99),00195-6

Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional
intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference
to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of
Personality, 15, 425–448. doi:10.1002/per.416

Plucker, J. A. (2010). Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalyses
of Torrance’s (1958 to present) longitudinal data.
Creativity Research Journal, 12, 103–114. doi:10.1207/
s15326934crj1202_3

Powers, D. E., & Kaufman, J. C. (2004). Do standardized
tests penalize deep-thinking, creative, or conscientious
students? Some personality correlates of Graduate Record
Examinations test scores. Intelligence, 32, 145–153.
doi:10.1016/j.intell.2003.08.003

Preckel, F., Holling, H., & Wiese, M. (2006). Relationship of
intelligence and creativity in gifted and non–gifted

students: An investigation of threshold theory.
Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 159–170.
doi:10.1080/10400410409534553

Rawlings, D., & Locarnini, A. (2007). Validating the creativity
scale for diverse domains using groups of artists and
scientists. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 25, 163–172.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/Q538-2307-2627-1256

Richmond, B. O. (1966). Creativity in monozygotic and
dyzygotic’ twins (ERIC Number: ED109580). Retrieved June
25, 2015, from ERIC http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED109580

Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2007). Relative
accessibility of domain knowledge and creativity: The
effects of knowledge activation on the quantity and
originality of generated ideas. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 43, 933–946. doi:10.1016/j.
jesp.2006.10.014

Runco, M. A., Millar, G., Acar, S., & Cramond, B. (2010). Torrance
tests of creative thinking as predictors of personal and public
achievement: A fifty-year follow-up. Creativity Research
Journal, 22, 361–368. doi:10.1080/10400419.2010.523393

Şahin, F. (2014). Yaratıcılık–zeka ilişkisi: Yeni deliller
[Relationship of creativity and intelligence: New
evidence]. İlköğretim Online Journal, 13, 1516–1530.
doi:10.17051/io.2014.02374

Şahin, F. (2015). A Research on the structure of intelligence
and creativity, and creativity style. Turkish Journal of
Giftedness and Education, 5, 2–20.

Şahin, F. (2016). Kaufman Alanları Yaratıcılılık Ölçeği’nin
Türkçeye uyarlanması ve psikometrik özelliklerinin
incelenmesi [Adaptation of the Kaufman Domains of
Creativity Scale into Turkish and examination of its
psychometric properties]. Elementary Education Online,
15, 855–867. doi:10.17051/io.2016.70479

Şahin, F., & Şahin, D. (2012). Engelli bireylerle çalışan özel
eğitim öğretmenlerinin tükenmişlik düzeyinin belirlenmesi
[Examining the burn-out level of special education
teachers working with disabled individuals]. Öğretmen
Eğitimi ve Eğitimcileri Dergisi, 2, 275–294.

Şahin, F., & Şahin, D. (2013). Bilim ve sanat merkezinde
çalışan öğretmenlerin tükenmişlik düzeyi [Examining the
burn-out levels of talented students teachers working
at science-arts centres]. Üstün Yeteneklilerin Eğitimi
Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1, 51–66.

Şahin, F., Özer, E., & Deniz, M. E. (2016). The predictive level of
emotional intelligence for the domain–specific creativity:
A study on gifted students. Education and Science, 41,
181–197. doi:10.15390/EB.2016.4576

Sak, U. (2004). A synthesis of research on psychological types
of gifted adolescents. The Journal of Secondary Gifted
Education, 15, 70–79.

Sak, U. (2009). Üstün yetenekliler eğitim programları [Gifted
education programs]. Ankara: Maya Publishing.

Sak, U., & Ayas, B. (2013). Creative scientific ability test (C–SAT):
A new measure of scientific creativity. Psychological Test
and Assessment Modeling, 55, 316–329.

Sánchez-Ruiz, M. J., Hernández-Torrano, D., Pérez-González,
J. C., Batey, M., & Petrides, K. V. (2011). The relationship
between trait emotional intelligence and creativity across
subject domains. Motivation and Emotion, 35, 461–473.
doi:10.1007/s11031-011-9227-8

Silvia, P. L. (2008). Creativity and intelligence revisited:
A latent variable analysis of Wallach and Kogan
(1965). Creativity Research Journal, 20, 34–39.
doi:10.1080/10400410701841807

Silvia, P. J., Wigert, B., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Kaufman, J. C.
(2012). Assessing creativity with self–report scales: A
review and empirical evaluation. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 19–34.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024071

Sligh, A. C., Conners, F. A., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, B. (2005).
Relation of creativity to fluid and crystallized intelligence.

Page 16 of 16

Şahin, Cogent Education (2016), 3: 1218315
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1218315

© 2016 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Cogent Education (ISSN: 2331-186X) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group.
Publishing with Cogent OA ensures:
• Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
• High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online
• Download and citation statistics for your article
• Rapid online publication
• Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards
• Retention of full copyright of your article
• Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
• Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com

The Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 123–136.
doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2005.tb01254.x

Soldz, S., & Vaillant, G. E. (1999). The big five personality traits
and the life course: A 45-year longitudinal study. Journal
of Research in Personality, 33, 208–232. doi:10.1006/
jrpe.1999.2243

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of
creativity and its development. Human Development, 34,
1–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000277029

Tan, S., Soysal, Ş., Aldemir, S., & Işık, B. (2012). Üstün zeka
düzeyindeki bir grup öğrencinin WISC–R profillerinin
incelenmesi [A group of students at the level of gifted
investigation of WISC–R profiles]. Yeni Tıp Dergisi, 29, 170–173.

Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1976). Genetic studies of genius:
Volume IV, the gifted child grows up twenty–five years’
follow–up of a superior group, Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.

Torrance, E. P. (2008). The torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms–
technical manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

Virgolim, A. M. R. (2005). Criatividade e inteligencia: Um estudo
com alunos superdotados brasileiros [Creativity and
intelligence: A study with Brazilian students] (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.

Wallbrown, F. H., Wallbrown, J. D., & Wherry, R. J. (1975). The
construct validity of the wallach-kogan creativity test for
ınner-city children. The Journal of General Psychology, 92,
83–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1975.9711330

Ward, T. B. (2008). The role of domain knowledge in creative
generation. Learning and Individual Differences, 18,
363–366. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2007.07.002

Yoon, S. (2005). Comparing the intelligence and creativity
scores of Asian American gifted students with Caucasian
gifted students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Purdue University, West Lafayette.

© 2016 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative
Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. This work is licensed under the

Creative Commons Attribution License creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
(the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may

use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.

  • Abstract: 
  • 1. Introduction
    • 1.1. General creativity vs. domain creativity
    • 1.2. Intelligence–creativity
    • 1.3. Emotional intelligence–creativity
    • 1.4. Knowledge–creativity
    • 1.5. Present study
  • 2. Method
    • 2.1. Participants
    • 2.2. Measures
      • 2.2.1. Kaufman domains of creativity scale (KDOCS–TR)
      • 2.2.2. Emotional intelligence specialty scale–short form (TEQ–SF)
      • 2.2.2.1. Wechsler intelligence scale for children–R IV (WISC–R IV)
      • 2.2.2.2. Academic achievement grades
    • 2.2.3. Procedure
    • 2.2.4. Data analysis
  • 3. Results
    • 3.1. Descriptive statistics and correlations
    • 3.2. Multiple regressions
  • 4. Discussion
    • 4.1. Scholarly creativity
    • 4.2. Mechanical/scientific creativity
    • 4.3. Performance creativity
    • 4.4. Self/everyday creativity
    • 4.5. Art creativity
  • 5. Conclusion
  • References

67

ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/

STUDENT, PARENT AND
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS
ON THE BEHAVIORAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF
SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY
AND THE IMPLICATIONS
TO ENHANCE STUDENTS’
SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY

Insun Lee,
Jongwon Park

Introduction

There are many aspects to consider for the scientific creativity of stu-
dents, including cognitive, affective, attitude, and environmental influences.
Of these, this research focuses on the environmental aspects that encour-
age scientific creativity. Since parents’ and teachers’ perception of scientific
creativity are parts of this environmental aspect, this research has examined
their perceptions on scientific creativity.

Many studies have emphasized the importance of the right environment
to encourage creativity1 (Cole et al., 1999; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Peter-
Szarka, 2012; Sternberg & O’hara, 1999). For instance, Davies et al. (2013)
conducted a literature review and summarized the conditions needed to
encourage creativity with eight items, such as the availability of appropri-
ate materials, work outside the classroom/school, opportunities for peer
collaboration, and so on. In more detail, de Souza Fleith (2000) proposed
a classroom environment that enhances creativity with 16 items in four
categories: teachers’ attitudes, strategies, activities and educational system.
Richardson and Mishra (2018) developed practical guidelines to build a cre-
ative learning environment consisting of 14 items in three categories: physical
environment, learning climate and learner engagement. These environmental
conditions that have been suggested for creativity include a need for the
teacher to properly understand creativity. For example, teachers should be
able to accept new ideas, support taking risks in the classroom (Richardson
& Mishra, 2018), and provide flexible directions and open-ended activities
(de Souza Fleith, 2000). Beghetto and Kaufman (2014) also discussed what
teachers should understand about creativity and what efforts should be
made to develop students’ creativity.

1 In this paper, general creativity is written as just ‘creativity’, and it is written as ‘scientific
creativity’ only in the case of scientific creativity.

Abstract. Teachers’ and parents’ percep-
tions of scientific creativity are assumed
to be an important environmental factor
for scientific creativity, so this research
surveyed their perceptions of the behavio-
ral characteristics of scientific creativity and
compared their perceptions to those of stu-
dents. This is achieved with a list of behav-
ioral characteristics of creative physicists
during their growth period. For this survey,
48 science teachers, 112 parents, and 145
science gifted students participated. Out
of the 30 items of the list, they selected 10
items that were considered important indi-
cators to become creative scientists in the
future, and they ranked them according to
their importance. The results showed that
the three groups all perceived ‘conducting
experiments, asking questions, thinking
logically to solve difficult problems, and
sharing ideas’ as important for scientific
creativity. For the items that were perceived
to be less important, it was discussed why
these items might be necessary for scientific
creativity. Comparative result showed that
parents gave more importance to learning-
related aspects, teachers to thinking-
related aspects, and students to activities
such as making and experimenting. This
research showed the behavioral character-
istics that should be encouraged to improve
students’ scientific creativity at school and
at home.

Keywords: behavioral characteristics,
creativity perception, creative environment,
scientific creativity

Insun Lee
Chungbuk National University, South Korea

Jongwon Park
Chonnam National University, South Korea

https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.67

68

Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2021

ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/

This research started with the assumption that the perception or awareness of scientific creativity by teachers,
parents and students plays an important role as an environment to encourage and guide the students’ scientific
creativity.

One interesting feature found in research of how teachers, parents, and students perceive creativity is that
there are often some misconceptions of creativity. According to Guncer and Oral (1993), students considered
non-compliant by Turkish teachers showed higher score on the TTCT creativity test, and Aljughaiman and Mueller-
Reynolds (2005) also said that students with tendencies that teachers disliked were often highly creative students.
Fryer and Collings (1991) noted that 70% of surveyed teachers in England and Wales regarded creativity as a rare
talent, and Jaba et al. (2009) also found that only 14% of surveyed college students saw creativity as a charac-
teristic that everyone had, and 78% of the students saw it as a characteristic that only a few had. Gralewski and
Karwowski (2018) said that some teachers perceived creative students as students who were self-controlled and
disciplined, not as students who could solve inventive or open problems well. Diakidoy and Kanari (1999) reported
that student-teachers believed creativity was only found in the arts, and creative products were new but not nec-
essarily appropriate or right. Aljughaiman and Mowrer-Reynolds (2005) also said that only 15% of the teachers
correlated divergent thinking with creativity. These findings indicate that people’s perceptions of creativity may
differ from those of experts.

Similarly, perceptions of the behavioral characteristics of scientific creativity may vary among teachers, parents
and students, and this difference in perception may serve as a hindrance to fostering students’ scientific creativity.
For example, if students think that activities such as ‘making’ are important for scientific creativity, but teachers
and parents think those activities are not very important, then the ‘making’ that students want to do may not be
supported by their teachers or parents.

Research Aim

The basic aim of this research is to examine and compare the perceptions of the behavioral characteristics of
scientific creativity by three groups: teachers, parents and students. The behavioral characteristics that are used
are obtained from a list of the behavioral characteristics of creative physicists (BCCP) developed by Shin and Park
(2020). This list consists of 30 items across eight categories, it is based on the actual behavioral instances of six
physicists during their growth period, and it showed a high reliability and validity by applying it to scientifically
gifted upper secondary school students. This list was developed based on the behavioral characteristics shown
by creative physicists in their childhoods, and it described observable behavioral characteristics. Therefore, it was
expected for parents, students, and teachers to be able to use the list easily to identify the behavioral characteristics
of students. The detailed aims of this research are:

• To highlight the BCCP items that teachers, parents and students consider important.
• To analyze the differences in the perception of behavioral characteristics of scientific creativity among

teachers, parents and students.
• To discuss the perceptions that teachers and parents may need to change in order to encourage stu-

dents’ scientific creativity.

Research Background

While this research is about scientific creativity, previous findings on general creativity can also provide mean-
ingful implications. Research which examined teachers’ recognition of creativity (e.g., Bereczki & Karpati, 2018)
can be classified into three categories: perceptions of the nature of creativity, perceptions of the characteristics of
creative students and perceptions of the creative learning environment (Andiliou & Murphy, 2010).

First, regarding research on teachers’ perceptions of the nature of creativity, Fryer and Collings (1991) conducted
a survey of 1,028 teachers in England and Wales and reported that teachers perceived creativity as imagination,
original ideas, self-expression, and so on, and about 71% of teachers considered creativity as a ‘rare gift’. Aljughaiman
and Mowrer-Reynolds (2005) found that 88% of American teachers they surveyed associated creativity with original
ideas. Liu and Lin (2014) noted that the perception of scientific creativity from Taiwanese teachers could be put
into three categories: divergent thinking (e.g., innovation and imaginative), autonomy (e.g., adventurous and/or
non-conforming), as well as curiosity and interest.

Second, regarding research on teachers’ perceptions of the characteristics of creative students, Aljughaiman

https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.67

STUDENT, PARENT AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS ON THE BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY AND THE IMPLICATIONS TO ENHANCE STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC
CREATIVITY
(pp. 67-79)

69

Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2021

ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/

and Mowrer-Reynolds (2005) reported 92% of respondents said creative students had the characteristic of think-
ing differently from others. Hoff and Carlsson (2011) found that teachers thought creative students also had other
characteristics, such as high levels of academic achievement, ability for cooperation, psychological well-being
and self-confidence. Karwowski (2010), who surveyed 630 teachers in Poland, said that teachers thought creative
students were more dynamic, intellectual, and excitable, but on the other hand they were also perceived to be
less agreeable and conscientious. Chan and Chan (1999) found that teachers in Hong Kong thought that creative
students asked a lot of questions, were imaginative, responsive, active, and had a high intellect.

Finally, according to research that examined teachers’ perception of a creative learning environment, 80%
of American teachers surveyed thought that creativity could be developed in school classrooms (Aljughaiman
& Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005). When Rubenstein et al. (2018) asked teachers what interfered with students’ creativ-
ity, 60% of the teachers’ responses were about external regulations, such as limited time, exams or standardized
curricula, 23% were about student characteristics, such as students not taking risks. Hartley and Plucker (2014)
reported that Chinese teachers believed that even routine classroom activities, such as group discussion or watch-
ing educational movies, could improve students’ creativity, and only 8% of them answered that multiple-choice
tests were not suitable to foster creativity.

Parents’ perceptions of creativity alongside teachers’ perceptions are important to create an environment in
which creativity can flourish (Walberg, 1988). Among few studies examined how parents perceive creativity, Singh
(1987) surveyed 260 Indian parents the relative importance of the personality traits of creative children and found
that parents did not prefer creative traits such as independent thinking and judgment, risk taking, and intuition.
Runco, Johnson and Bear (1993) had 16 teachers who were not parents and 29 parents who were not teachers
choose adjectives describing creative children. The result shows that 67% of the adjectives chosen by both groups
were identical, while the remaining 33% were chosen by only one of the groups, and this shows that there is a
difference in the perceptions created by the contrasting experiences of the two groups.

Students’ perceptions of creativity alongside teachers’ and parents’ perceptions are also important to create a
suitable environment for creativity. Jaba et al. (2009) conducted a research of 158 Romanian college students and
reported that students thought of creativity as solving problems in an original way, having many ideas, perform-
ing in a different way from others, making associations between seemingly different things, and so on, so we can
expect that students interested in developing creativity will consider some of these factors. Also, from students’
own assessments of creativity, we can learn about their perceptions of creativity. For example, Kreitler and Casa-
kin (2009) gave students the task of designing a small art museum and allowed them to evaluate whether their
designs were creative by themselves. The result showed that their evaluations of fluency, flexibility, and overall
creativity were consistent with expert’s evaluation. However, when Althuizen et al. (2010) compared the results of
a creative self-assessment for 120 Dutch university and graduate students with the results of a general creativity
test for them, there was only a low correlation (α=0.25) in originality and no correlation in the rest of the items of
creativity. Thus, in science, too, if students don’t recognize their scientific creativity correctly, they may not be able
to make correct efforts for the aspects of scientific creativity that should be developed.

As noted in previous literature reviews, there are many aspects to the perception of creativity, such as percep-
tions of the nature of creativity, perceptions of creative students or creative teachers, and the perception of creative
learning environments or creative learning strategies (Andiliou & Murphy, 2010).

This research examined the behavioral characteristics of scientific creativity that are evaluated by teachers,
parents, and students as an important aspect for scientifically creative students. With the assumption that these
perceptions are important to foster students’ scientific creativity, this research is meaningful in that fostering stu-
dents’ scientific creativity is one of the important goals of science education.

Research Methodology

General Background

This research implemented a survey to collect data systematically on people’s preferences, thoughts and
behaviors. The questionnaire for the survey was developed using a list of behavioral characteristics of creative
physicists (BCCP) during their growth period (Shin & Park, 2020). A total of 305 participants who answered the
questionnaire were randomly selected among teachers, parents and students related to gifted science education
in Korea. When respondents participated in a university program related to gifted science education between

https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.67

STUDENT, PARENT AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS ON THE BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY AND THE IMPLICATIONS TO ENHANCE STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC

CREATIVITY
(pp. 67-79)

70

Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2021

ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/

July and August 2019, they responded directly to the questionnaire on site. At that time, they chose 10 items from
the BCCP list that they thought were important for students to become creative scientists in the future, and they
ranked the selected items according to their level of importance. Their responses were quantitatively analyzed
using a statistical analysis to compare the differences between the three groups. The results were used to discuss
the behavioral characteristics parents and teachers should be concerned or interested in to encourage students’
scientific creativity.

Participants

In Korea, there are many centers for the gifted in science and mathematics. The center at Chungbuk National
University selects gifted students in the area of science and mathematics from elementary and middle schools,
and it then teaches them for about 100 hours a year. After a year of education, students who show excellent results
can receive two more years of education. Of the 160 first-year students at the center, 149 students were randomly
selected and agreed to participate in the survey. They responded to a questionnaire for about 20 minutes when
they participated in the university-provided education program.

Among the parents of the gifted science students in the center, 116 parents expressed their intention to
participate in the survey. They answered a questionnaire when they participated in a presentation in which their
children presented the results of the gifted education program.

The university to which the center belongs provided an in-service training program for science teachers for
gifted education in science. Among 191 science teachers that participated in the training program, 50 lower and
upper secondary school teachers expressed their willingness to answer the questionnaire. They have experience
teaching gifted students in science or are highly interested in gifted education in science, with an average educa-
tional background of 5.3 years.

Of the total 315 participants, 145 students, 112 parents and 48 teachers were included in the actual analysis,
excluding those who responded insincerely or omitted some responses in the survey. In general, to conduct a
statistical analysis, larger sample sizes are better. In a real situation, however, using the appropriate sample sizes
is also recommended. For example, according to Karada and Akta (2012), for an ANOVA analysis with 95% power,
α=0.05, and an effect size f=0.4, the estimated sample size for the three groups is 102, which is 34 per group. Since
the smallest teacher group’s sample size is 48, which is larger than 34, the size of three samples in this research
was judged to be sufficient for an ANOVA analysis.

Questionnaire

The behavioral characteristics of scientific creativity that teachers, parents, and students consider important
to become creative scientists is obtained from a list of behavioral characteristics of creative physicists during their
growth period (BCCP) (Shin & Park, 2020). The BCCP list was developed by extracting key behavioral characteristics
from the literature describing various episodes during the growth period of six creative physicists: Newton, Faraday,
Maxwell, Einstein, Heisenberg and Feynman. The BCCP list consists of 8 categories and 30 statements (items), as
shown in Table 1.

Table 1
The BCCP list (Shin & Park, 2020)

Category Code Statement

I. Making I.1 I like to make things.

I.2 I make things using what is available nearby.

I.3 I am used to using a machine or a device.

I.4 I have experience making new things or devices.

I.5 I make something complicated and accurate.

https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.67

STUDENT, PARENT AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS ON THE BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY AND THE IMPLICATIONS TO ENHANCE STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC
CREATIVITY
(pp. 67-79)

71

Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2021

ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/

Category Code Statement

II. Inquiry/
Experiment

II.1 I like experiment/inquiry and do it a lot.

II.2 I have an experimental environment and have my own laboratory space.

II.3 I do scientific inquiry using what is available nearby.

II.4 I plan and make scientific inquiry deliberately and meticulously.

II.5 I do not hurry scientific inquiry

III. Task
commitment

III.1 I prefer to learn by myself.

III.2 I like to solve difficult problems.

III.3 I have concentration.

III.4 I have experiences of solving problems by applying effort over a long time.

III.5 I have my own rules/standards and hate to lose.

IV. Curiosity/
Question

IV.1 I am curious about natural phenomena.

IV.2 I enjoy thinking deeply about natural phenomena.

IV.3 I am interested in profound/fundamental problems such as religion or philosophy.

IV.4 I like questions and ask many questions.

V. Reading/
Summary

V.1 I do a lot of reading.

V.2 I summarize my reading, exploring, studying and thinking.

V.3 I have a habit of taking notes in everyday life.

VI. Logic/
Insight

VI.1 I prefer logical thinking.

VI.2 I understand content easily (grasp the point well/have insight).

VI.3 I use/develop my own unusual methods.

VII. Artistic
interest/
expression

VII.1 I have a talent and interest in music.

VII.2 I like poetry and am good at poetic expression.

VII.3 I understand or express things using visualization instead of words.

VIII. Communication VIII.1 I prefer discussion and debate.

VIII.2 I like to share ideas with a team.

This list has gained high validity based on a survey of experts and science teachers who had experience in
gifted education, and it was found to have high reliability by applying it to science upper secondary school stu-
dents who showed high interest and achievements in science and mathematics using the Cronbach alpha, Cohen’s
kappa, and correlations between two evaluators (Shin & Park, 2020).

The reasons why this list is chosen here is because it consists of statements describing behavioral charac-
teristics that can be easily observed by teachers, parents and students, and also because the list is appropriate
to judge students’ behaviors since it was developed based on actual behavioral episodes shown in the period of
childhood, not on the behavior of adults.

The questionnaire provided a list of 30 items of the BCCP and asked the participants to select 10 items that
they thought were important to become creative scientists, and to rank the 10 selected items from the 1st to 10th
according to their level of importance.

Some of the items in the list were modified and presented as more easily understandable expressions for
young students or parents. For example, item VI.1 “I prefer logical thinking” was modified to “I like logical think-
ing”, and item VI.2 “I understand content easily (grasp the point well/have insight)” was modified to “I understand
content easily and can grasp the point well”.

The BCCP list was developed by looking at six creative physicists, but this research introduced the items
simply as behavioral characteristics of creative ‘scientists’ because the subjects included young students, and as
such, the general expression ‘scientists’ was considered appropriate rather than giving detailed expressions such
as ‘physicists’ that could be misunderstood. Of course, the limitations of this research in this regard are discussed
in the Conclusions and Implications section.

https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.67

STUDENT, PARENT AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS ON THE BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY AND THE IMPLICATIONS TO ENHANCE STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC

CREATIVITY
(pp. 67-79)

72

Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2021

ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/

Data Analysis

The rankings of the items selected by the respondents were converted into scores. That is, 10 scores were given
to the first ranked item, 9 scores were given to the second ranked item, and so on, until 1 score was given to the
10th ranked item. Using the converted scores, the total scores and the average values were obtained for each of the
three groups of teachers, parents and students, and for each of the 30 items and 8 categories in the BCCP list itself.

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether there were significant differences between the av-
erage of each group, each item, and each category. When a significant difference was detected, a Scheffé analysis
was conducted as a Post-Hoc test. To do this, the SPSS statistics program (version 25) was used.

Research Results

Comparison of the Eight Categories

Table 2 shows the results of averaging the importance perceived by the groups of students, parents and
teachers for each category of the BCCP.

Table 2
Three Groups’ Perceptions of the Importance of Each Category of the BCCP

Category

Group ANOVA

Scheffé testS: Students
(n=145)
M SD

P: Parents
(n=112)
M SD

T: Teachers
(n=48)

M SD
F p

I. Making 1.33 1.35 0.77 1.07 0.79 0.93 8.186 < .001** S > P**, S > T*

II. Inquiry/Experiment 2.27 1.29 1.51 1.16 1.55 1.14 14.057 < .001** S > P**, S > T**

III. Task commitment 2.40 1.36 2.89 1.52 2.30 1.50 4.516 .012* S < P*

IV. Curiosity/Question 1.69 1.58 2.16 1.70 3.78 1.84 28.260 < .001** S < T**, P < T**

V. Reading/Summary 2.29 1.94 2.69 1.94 1.46 1.83 6.889 .001** S > T*, P > T**

VI. Logic/Insight 2.09 1.87 2.30 1.66 2.32 1.67 0.584 .558 –

VII. Artistic interest/expression 0.17 0.63 0.49 0.94 0.17 0.46 6.696 .001** S < P**, P > T*

VIII. Communication 2.30 2.34 2.04 2.31 2.42 2.27 0.604 .547 –

* p < .05, ** p < .01

Looking at Table 2, we can see that categories VI (Logic/Insight) and VIII (Communication) do not show any
significant differences in the importance perceived by the three groups. Since the average score for the importance
of each group in both categories was higher than the overall average of 1.84 (2.09–2.32 scores for category VI and
2.04–2.42 scores for category VIII), this means that all three groups recognized that both categories were important.

There are six categories with different scores in the three groups’ perceptions of importance. Among them, for
category I (Making) and II (Inquiry/Experiment), students perceived these as more important than parents and teach-
ers both, and for category V (Reading/Summary), students considered this more important than teachers. However,
the recognition of importance for category I (Making) was lower (0.77–1.33 scores) than the overall mean of 1.84.

On the other hand, parents or teachers gave a higher importance to category III, IV and VII compared to students.
That is, compared to students, categories III (Task commitment) and VII (Artistic interest/expression) were perceived
by parents as more important, and category IV (Curiosity/Question) was perceived by teachers as more important.

There were three categories where the perceptions of the importance of parents and teachers differed. That
is, category IV (Curiosity/Question) was perceived to be more important to teachers, while categories V (Reading/
Summary) and VII (Artistic interest/expression) were perceived as more important to parents. However, category
VII was very low in importance for all three groups (0.17–0.49 scores).

https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.67

STUDENT, PARENT AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS ON THE BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY AND THE IMPLICATIONS TO ENHANCE STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC
CREATIVITY
(pp. 67-79)

73

Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2021

ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/

The following is a summary of the features analyzed above:
– Students, parents and teachers all value ‘thinking logically’ and ‘communicating with others’ as creative

behaviors.
– There are differences between groups, but all three groups consider ‘making’ and ‘artistic expression’ to

be relatively less important.
– Students think ‘active characteristics (i.e., making, inquiry/experiment)’ and reading/summary’ are more

important than their parents and/or teachers. However, for the aspects related to ‘learning (i.e., task
commitment)’ and ‘thinking (i.e., curiosity/question)’ and ‘artistic expression’, teachers or parents consider
it more important than students.

– When comparing perceptions of parents to those of teachers, teachers value ‘aspect related to thinking
(i.e., curiosity/question)’ more than parents, but parents think ‘learning aspect (i.e., reading/summary)’
and ‘artistic expression’ are more important than teachers.

Comparison of the 30 Statements (Items)

The BCCP list consists of 8 categories and 30 statements (Table 1). Table 3 shows the results of a comparison
between the three groups’ perceptions about the importance of each statement in the BCCP list.

Table 3
Three Groups’ Perceptions of the Importance of Each Statement in the BCCP

Category and Statement

Group ANOVA

Scheffé testS: Students
(n=145)
M SD

P: Parents
(n=112)
M SD

T: Teachers
(n=48)
M SD

F p

I.
Making

I.1 2.67 3.69 1.29 2.55 1.06 2.35 8.303 < .001** S > P**, S > T**

I.2 0.82 2.13 1.09 2.20 0.81 1.93 0.576 .563 –

I.3 1.23 2.49 0.36 1.35 0.88 1.68 5.898 .003** S > P**

I.4 0.96 2.26 0.98 2.28 0.98 2.01 0.004 .996 –

I.5 0.97 2.32 0.13 0.69 0.21 0.94 8.681 < .001** S > P**, S > T*

II.
Inquiry/Experiment

II.1 4.77 3.84 3.68 3.36 4.13 3.95 2.784 .063 –

II.2 0.64 1.72 0.08 0.59 0.06 0.43 7.769 .001** S > P**, S > T**

II.3 1.30 2.35 1.29 2.39 1.04 1.95 0.247 .781 –

II.4 3.32 3.53 1.91 2.92 1.75 2.76 7.974 < .001** S > P**, S > T*

II.5 1.30 2.62 0.61 1.75 0.79 1.71 3.257 .040* S > P*

III.
Task commitment

III.1 2.12 2.97 3.93 3.61 1.83 3.17 11.954 < .001** S < P**, P > T**

III.2 2.21 3.22 2.57 3.37 2.54 3.35 0.444 .642 –

III.3 5.74 3.72 4.43 3.77 3.88 3.56 6.359 .002** S > P*, S > T*

III.4 1.23 2.45 2.90 3.48 2.83 3.66 10.981 < .001** S < P**, S < T**

III.5 0.71 1.91 0.60 1.80 0.40 1.76 0.534 .587 –

IV.
Curiosity/Question

IV.1 1.88 3.10 3.13 3.89 5.60 4.16 19.848 < .001** S < P*, S < T**, P < T**

IV.2 0.92 2.22 1.82 3.18 4.88 4.19 32.18 < .001** S < T**, P < T**

IV.3 0.22 1.19 0.35 1.43 0.50 1.79 0.791 .454 –

IV.4 3.76 3.81 3.34 3.86 4.15 3.59 0.841 .432 –

V.
Reading/Summary

V.1 3.98 3.69 4.29 4.04 2.08 3.18 6.125 .002* S > T*, P > T**

V.2 1.82 2.98 3.13 3.79 1.38 2.72 7.077 .001* S < P**, P > T**

V.3 1.08 2.44 0.66 2.05 0.94 2.20 1.105 .333 –

https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.67

STUDENT, PARENT AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS ON THE BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY AND THE IMPLICATIONS TO ENHANCE STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC

CREATIVITY
(pp. 67-79)

74

Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2021

ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/

Category and Statement

Group ANOVA

Scheffé testS: Students
(n=145)
M SD

P: Parents
(n=112)
M SD

T: Teachers
(n=48)
M SD

F p

VI.
Logic/Insight

VI.1 2.78 3.37 2.62 3.48 2.79 3.38 0.085 .919 –

VI.2 1.66 2.82 2.79 3.51 2.29 3.25 4.16 .017* S < P*

VI.3 1.83 2.98 1.50 2.64 1.88 3.10 0.512 .600 –

VII.
Artistic interest/expres-

sion

VII.1 0.16 0.95 0.31 0.98 0.10 0.47 1.286 .278 –

VII.2 0.06 0.59 0.09 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.463 .630 –

VII.3 0.28 1.18 1.06 2.30 0.40 1.33 7.017 .001* S < P**

VIII.
Communication

VIII.1 2.24 3.02 1.68 2.75 1.50 2.70 1.814 .165 –

VIII.2 2.35 3.36 2.39 3.08 3.33 3.14 1.811 .165 –
* p < .05, ** p < .01

According to Table 3, fifteen statements (statement numbers I.2, I.4, II.1, II.3, III.2, III.5, IV.3, IV.4, V.3, VI.1, VI.3,
VII.1, VII.2, VIII.1 and VIII.2) do not show any significant difference between the three groups’ perceptions of their
importance to scientific creativity. Among these, three groups perceived statements II.1 (many inquiry/experiment,
average scores are 3.68-4.77), III.2 (solving difficult problems, average scores are 2.21-3.37), IV.4 (many questions,
average scores are 3.34-4.15), VI.1 (logical thinking, average scores are 2.62-2.79) and VIII.2 (sharing ideas, average
scores are 2.35-3.33) as more important than the overall average of 1.84.

Among statements showing no differences, statements VI.3 (developing unusual methods) and VIII.1 (discus-
sion and debate) showed values near the average (1.84), but the of rest the statements (I.2; making using what is
available nearby, I.4; making new things, II.3; experimenting using what is available nearby, III.5; developing my
own standards, IV.3; interest in fundamental problems, V.3; taking notes, VII.1; talent in music and VII.2; interest in
poetry) were below the average importance value of 1.84. Therefore, the following is a summary of the statements
that do not differ in perception between the three groups:

– The three groups all perceived ‘conducting many experiments, asking many questions, thinking logically
to solve difficult problems, and sharing ideas’ as important for scientific creativity.

– The three groups all considered ‘discussion/debate with their own unusual methods’ as averagely impor-
tant.

– Three groups all perceived ‘using what is available nearby to experiment or make something new, taking
notes with interest in fundamental problems, developing their own standards, and talent/interest in aesthetic
aspects (poetry and music)’ as less important compared to other statements in the BCCP list.

When comparing the perceptions of teachers or parents with that of students in Table 3, fifteen among thirty
statements showed differences.

First, the statements that students consider more important than their parents and/or teachers are statement
I.1 (like making), I.3 (using machine or device when making), I.5 (making something complicated and accurate), II.2
(having my own laboratory space), II.4 (conducting inquiry deliberately and meticulously), II.5 (conducting inquiry
without hurry), III.3 (concentrating) and V.1 (reading a lot).

Among these eight statements, six statements are from category I (Making) and II (Inquiry/Experiment), and
students’ perceptions about four particular statements, I.1 (like making, average score is 2.67), II.4 (conducting
inquiry deliberately and meticulously, average score is 3.32), III.3 (concentrating, average score is 5.74) and V.1
(reading a lot, average score is 3.98), are especially higher than the average value of 1.84.

Second, teachers or/and parents perceived the following statements to be more important compared to
students: statement III.1 (learning by myself ), III.4 (giving effort for a long time to solve problems), IV.1 (curiosity),
IV.2 (deep thinking), V.2 (summarizing), VI.2 (grasping the point), and VII.3 (visualizing of understanding).

Of these seven statements that teachers or parents considered important compared to students, teachers

https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.67

STUDENT, PARENT AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS ON THE BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY AND THE IMPLICATIONS TO ENHANCE STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC
CREATIVITY
(pp. 67-79)

75

Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2021

ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/

and parents both perceived the statement III.4 (giving effort for a long time to solve problems) and IV.1 (curiosity)
as more important than students. And the statement that the teacher perceived as more important than students
was statement IV.2 (deep thinking), and the statements that the parent considered as more important than stu-
dents were statement III. 1 (learning by myself ), V.2 (summarizing), VI.2 (grasping the point) and VII.3 (visualizing
of understanding). Therefore, statements showing a difference between student’s perception and teachers’ or
parents’ perceptions can be summarized as follows:

– Students consider ‘reading a lot and making or experimenting accurately and deliberately using machines or
devices without hurrying but with concentration in their own laboratory space’ more important compared
to their teachers or/and parents.

– Parents and teachers both perceive ‘giving effort for a long time to solve problems and showing curiosity’
more important than students.

– Especially teachers consider ‘deep thinking’ a more important behavior compared to students.
– And parents perceive ‘summarizing and visualizing that they grasp the point of what they learned by

themselves’ to be more important than students.

As shown in Table 3, the following five statements show differences between parents’ and teachers’ percep-
tions: III.1, IV.1, IV.2, V.1 and V.2.

That is, parents consider statement III.1 (learning by myself ), V.1 (reading a lot), and V.2 (summarizing) more
important than teachers, and teachers perceive statement IV.1 (curiosity), IV.2 (deep thinking) more important than
parents. Therefore, this feature can be summarized as follows:

– Parents think the learning aspects (i.e. summarizing what students learn by themselves and reading many
books) are more important than teachers, on the other hand, teachers perceive thinking aspects (i.e.
deep thinking with curiosity) to be more important than parents.

Discussion

Of the 30 statements in the BCCP list, the three groups all perceived ‘conducting many experiments, asking
many questions, thinking logically to solve difficult problems, and sharing ideas’ as important for scientific creativity.

However, eight statements (using what is available nearby to experiment or make something new, taking notes
with interest in fundamental problems, developing their own standards, and talent/interest in poetry and music) were
considered less important than the average value for all three groups.

This result indicates that more attention is necessary to encourage these behavioral characteristics, which
were considered less important, for scientific creativity in schools and home. For example, ‘using what is available
nearby to experiment to make something new’ means that experiments whose methods, tools and results are not
prepared in advance are meaningful. In fact, school experiments provide experimental settings, tools and methods
designed to reduce errors as much as possible and to obtain the expected clear results. Therefore, even students
who have talent and interest in science have very few opportunities to conduct unprepared open experiments in
schools. As a result, when teaching students in a scientifically gifted center in a university, it has been observed
that many students have a lot of trouble conducting open inquiry. According to actual research procedures of
real scientists, they go through cyclic or non-linear procedures when conducting research (Park et al., 2009). That
is, scientists often go back to the previous stage of research, change their tentative hypotheses, obtain data re-
peatedly, and modify their research methods when results are not as expected, or they feel there are problems.
In this approach, there is also a non-linear process for missing certain steps or changing the path of the research.
Regarding this, Zion et al. (2004) observed that open inquiry could help students realize that the inquiry process
was not linear but was subject to change.

In addition, ‘developing their own standards’ is closely related to the aspect discussed above because this feature
appears in situations in which a pre-determined process and result are ignored. This approach also emphasizes
‘unusual thinking’ in creative endeavors (Park, 2004). According to the behavioral characteristics of creative physi-
cists in their growth period, Maxwell ignored formality when developing his own rules and procedures (Cropper,
2001/2007, p. 62), Feynman calculated it in his own original way, not just following prescribed methods of calculation
(Gleik, 2011, pp. 42-43), Einstein also proved the Pythagorean theorem in his own original way (Issacson, 2007, p. 17).

https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.67

STUDENT, PARENT AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS ON THE BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY AND THE IMPLICATIONS TO ENHANCE STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC

CREATIVITY
(pp. 67-79)

76

Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2021

ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/

‘Interest in fundamental issues’ also relates to the aspects mentioned above in terms of the fact that fundamental
problems do not have pre-determined or typical solutions. In fact, Heisenberg (Hermann, 1976, p. 11), Newton
(Christianson, 1996, p. 22; Gleik, 2007, p. 25), and Einstein (Hoffman & Dukas, 1972, p. 24) are all said to have been
interested in Plato’s, Aristotle’s, or Kant’s philosophies since their childhood. Fundamental problems or philosophy
are difficult and complex subjects and, therefore, can often be inconclusive. Since schools don’t often deal with
topics that don’t have clear conclusions like these, teachers, parents and students all need to pay more attention
to this aspect to encourage scientific creativity.

It is also found that ‘taking notes’ needs to be encouraged to promote students’ scientific creativity. Regard-
ing this, Newton was so busy writing down many of his thoughts that it was difficult to find elegant handwriting
in his notes (Christianson, 1996, p. 23), and it is well-known that Faraday made good notes about the lectures he
heard (Russell, 1999, Location No. 235). The reason why ‘taking notes’ is important is because creative students are
apt to have many and various different ideas, and notes can help maintain and sustain them for a longer period
of time. In this approach, initial notes are modified and developed over time, depending on additional experience
and knowledge. In fact, even scientific knowledge was initially invented or proposed in an incomplete state and
was then developed in an evolutionary manner. For example, Lakatos (1994) described how the atomic model
evolved from Bohr’s initial simple and incomplete model to the more detailed and articulated model we know now.

For the two statements related to the aesthetic aspects (statements VII.1 and VII.2, interest and talent in music
or poetry), the mean value of the importance awareness was very low at 0.13 compared to the total average value
of 1.84. Of course, creativity is area- or content-dependent. That is, creativity in science has different features from
creativity in other fields or areas (Baer, 1991; Conti et al., 1996). However, there is something in common between
science and art in terms of creativity. In other words, just as it is important to express our own new feelings or ideas
differently in music or poetry, new scientific findings also need to be expressed through new languages, explana-
tions, or models (Shin & Park, 2020). In schools, many students think that scientific knowledge they are taught is
the truth, but the nature of science emphasizes the ‘tentativeness of scientific knowledge’ (Akerson et al., 2006;
Lederman et al., 2002). That is, scientific knowledge is subject to change. Therefore, in order to encourage scientific
creativity, science teachers, parents and students need to pay attention to how students express their own ideas
with their own language when suggesting new hypotheses to explain a phenomenon, drawing a new conclusion
about their scientific inquiry and so on.

According to the results, half of the 30 statements showed differences in the perception between the student
group and the parent and/or teacher groups. In this case, attention needs to be paid to these differences because
these differences may cause conflict between what students want and what they are encouraged to do. The main
feature of this difference is that while students mainly place more importance on active aspects (i.e., making and
experiment), teachers and/or parents mainly emphasized learning or thinking aspects (i.e., giving effort for a long
time and thinking deeply to solve problems with curiosity, summarizing and visualizing what they grasp the point in
the learning by themselves).

In fact, these two aspects (activity vs thinking/learning) are complementary elements in the behavioral char-
acteristics of scientific creativity. Therefore, if a student follows the guidance of the parent/teacher well and the
teachers/parents pay attention to the student’s attention, then these differences in perceptions are not important.
However, if teachers and parents only emphasize what they think is important, they may create an imbalance while
trying to encourage scientific creativity.

According to previous research (Shin & Park, 2020) that examined the behavioral characteristics of creative
physicists based on the literature that described various episodes during their growth period, about one-fourth of
210 episodes extracted from the literature analysis belonged to Category I (making) and II (inquiry/experiment).
This means that the activity aspect cannot be ignored and is an important part of scientific creativity. In fact, it is
not difficult to see that Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, and Feynman, well known as theoretical physicists, loved mak-
ing and experimenting a lot as children and showed talent for it. For example, Maxwell “loved apparatus and had
considerable manual dexterity” (Segre, 2012, Location No. 2857), Newton was also interested in special inventions
and machines (Christianson, 1996, p. 13), and Feynman is famous for making various devices as a child (Feynman
& Leighton, 1985, pp. 20-23). Therefore, teachers and parents need to understand the importance of the activity
aspects for scientific creativity and to encourage students’ behaviors related to it.

Finally, it is necessary to pay attention to the difference in perception between teachers and parents because
the two groups can give different guidance to the students, and as a result, students can also experience conflict.
Regarding this, parents thought learning aspects (summarizing what students learn by themselves and read many

https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.67

STUDENT, PARENT AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS ON THE BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY AND THE IMPLICATIONS TO ENHANCE STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC
CREATIVITY
(pp. 67-79)

77

Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2021

ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/

books) were more important while teachers perceived thinking aspects (deep thinking with curiosity) to be more
important. It is anticipated that parents may have greater interest in aspects related to studying. Moreover, some
parents may like curiosity and deep thinking less because curious students may seem distracted by a wide range
of interests or often miss what they have to do by falling into deep contemplation.

However, Newton was distracted by seeing the sun light passing through the garden in front of his house
(Christianson, 1996, p. 14), and Maxwell was obsessed with observing beetles rather than playing with other boys
at school (Forbes & Mahon, 2014, p. 132). Einstein is also said to have liked daydreaming and meditation (Issacson,
2007, p. 11). Therefore, parents need to adopt an attitude of watching and waiting when students display curiosity
and deep thinking even when these behaviors do not quickly show clear results.

Conclusions and Implications

Based on the assumption that teachers’ or parents’ perceptions of scientific creativity play an important role
in creating a learning environment that affects students’ scientific creativity, the perceptions of teachers, parents,
and students of behavioral characteristics related to scientific creativity were analyzed. For this, a list of behavioral
characteristics regarding creative physicists during their growth period was used.

The results show that behavioral characteristics, such as making something new using unprepared materials
from nearby, taking notes and showing interest in fundamental problems, developing their own standards, and having
concern for aesthetics, are perceived as less important for all three groups. Nevertheless, it was discussed why such
characteristics are important for scientific creativity and why they should also be emphasized. When comparing
the perceptions of the three groups, an especially interesting finding is that the parent group provided greater
importance to aspects related to learning, teachers to aspects related to thinking, and students to aspects related
to activities such as making and experimenting. These differences in how the groups look at these three aspects
are not problematic if they are encouraged in a complementarily fashion. However, if each group emphasizes dif-
ferent aspects as being important, then it can cause conflicts for the students.

Based on the results of this research, future research can be meaningful. First, research is needed to develop
guidance materials of the behavioral characteristics that need to be encouraged for students’ scientific creativity. In
particular, it is necessary to encourage behavioral characteristics that all three groups perceive to be less important.
For this, real-life episodes or instances of behaviors that actual scientists have shown during their growth period
will be helpful. In addition, since some behaviors can be seen as abnormal behaviors in a negative way, such as
excessive meditation, logically arguing, trying to make their own rules, and asking too many questions, guidance
is also be needed to explain why these behaviors may appear in young creative physicists.

Second, this research assumes that the perception of creative behaviors by parents or teachers serves as
an important factor to create learning environments that affect how students’ scientific creativity is encouraged.
To check this assumption, further research is necessary to check whether there is a change in students’ scientific
creativity when there are differences between students’ perceptions and teachers’ and parents’ perceptions. That
is, it will be possible to examine whether students become more creative in science in the future when there are
fewer differences in the perceptions of students, teachers and parents, or what happens when creative behavioral
characteristics are emphasized in a balanced manner. This kind of research requires significant hard work and
observations over long periods of time, but this effort would be very meaningful.

Finally, it is necessary to point out limitations in this research. This research used a list of creative behaviors of
physicists during their growth period. However, when examining the perceptions of the participants, the behavioral
characteristics provided were simply introduced as behavioral characteristics of the scientists. Therefore, a list of
behavioral characteristics of ‘scientists’ that includes areas other than physics should be developed to obtain more
accurate comparisons of the perceptions of the participants. In addition to questionnaires, in-depth interviews will
also be helpful to examine the perceptions more accurately.

References

Akerson, V. L., Morrison, J. A., & McDuffie, A. R. (2006). One course is not enough: Preservice elementary teachers’ retention of
improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 194-213. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20099

Aljughaiman, A., & Mowrer-Reynolds, E. (2005). Teachers’ conceptions of creativity and creative students. The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 39(1), 17-34. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2005.tb01247.x

Althuizen, N., Wierenga, B., & Rossiter, J. (2010). The validity of two brief measures of creative ability. Creativity Research Journal,

https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.67

STUDENT, PARENT AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS ON THE BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY AND THE IMPLICATIONS TO ENHANCE STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC

CREATIVITY
(pp. 67-79)

78

Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2021

ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/

22(1), 53-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410903579577
Andiliou, A., & Murphy, P. K . (2010). Examining variations among researchers’ and teachers’ conceptualizations of

c re at i v i t y : A re v i e w a n d s y nt h e s i s o f co nte m p o ra r y re s e a rc h . Ed u ca t i o n a l R e s e a rc h R e v i e w, 5( 3 ) , 2 0 1 – 2 1 9 .
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.003

B a e r, J . ( 1 9 9 1 ) . G e n e r a l i t y c r e a t i v i t y a c r o s s p e r f o r m a n c e d o m a i n s . C r e a t i v i t y R e s e a r c h J o u r n a l , 4 ( 1 ) , 2 3 – 3 9 .
https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534371

B e g h e t t o, R . A . , & K a u f m a n , J. C . ( 2 0 1 4 ) . C l a s s ro o m c o n t e x t s fo r c re a t i v i t y. H i g h A b i l i t y S t u d i e s , 2 5 ( 1 ) , 5 3 – 6 9 .
https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2014.905247

Bereczki, E. O., & Karpati, A. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs about creativity and its nurture: A systematic review of the recent research
literature. Educational Research Review, 23, 25-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.10.003

Chan, D. W., & Chan, L. K. (1999). Implicit theories of creativity: Teachers’ perception of student characteristics in Hong Kong.
Creativity Research Journal, 12(3), 185-195. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1203_3

Christianson, G. E. (1996). Isaac Newton and the scientific revolution. Oxford University Press.
Cole, D. G., Sugioka, H. L., & Yamagata-Ynch, L. C. (1999). Supportive classroom environments for creativity in higher education.

The Journal of Creative Behavior, 33(4), 277-293. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1999.tb01407.x
Conti, R., Coon, H., & Amabile, T. M. (1996). Evidence to support the componential model of creativity: Secondary analysis of

three studies. Creativity Research Journal, 9(4), 358-389. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj0904_9
Cropper, W. H. (2007). Great Physicists: The life and times of leading physicists from Galileo to Hawking (H. Kim, Trans.). Science

Books (Original work published 2001).
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. Harper Perennial.
Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education-A

systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 80-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.004
de Souza Fleith, D. (2000). Teacher and student perceptions of creativity in the classroom environment. Roeper Review, 22(3),

148-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190009554022
Diakidoy, I. A. N., & Kanari, E. (1999). Student teachers’ beliefs about creativity. British Educational Research Journal, 25(2), 225-243.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192990250206
Feynman, R. P., & Leighton, R. (1985). Classic Feynman: All the adventure of a curious character. W. W. Norton & Company.
Forbes, N., & Mahon, B. (2014). Faraday, Maxwell, and the electromagnetic field: How two men revolutionized physics. Prometheus

Books.
Fr yer, M., & Collings, J. A. (1991). British teachers’ views of creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 25(1), 75-81.

https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1991.tb01356.x
Gleik, J. (2011). Genius: The life and science of Richard Feynman [Kindle version]. https://amzn.to/3ncwBCF
Gleik, J. (2007). Issac Newton [Kindle version]. https://amzn.to/3lgGBsS
Gralewski, J., & Karwowski, M. (2018). Are teachers’ implicit theories of creativity related to the recognition of their students’

creativity? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 52(2), 156-167. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.140
Guncer, B., & Oral, G. (1993). Relationship between creativity and nonconformity to school discipline as perceived by teachers of

Turkish elementary school children, by controlling for their grade and sex. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 20(2), 208-214.
Hartley, K. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2014). Teacher use of creativity-enhancing activities in Chinese and American elementary classrooms.

Creativity Research Journal, 26(4), 389-399. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2014.961771
Hermann, A. (1976). Werner Heisenberg, 1901-1976. Inter Nations.
Hoff, E. V., & Carlsson, I. (2011). Teachers are not always right: links between teacher ratings and students’ creativity scores, self-images

and self-ratings in school subjects. The Open Education Journal, 4(1), 120-129. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874920801104010120
Hoffman, B., & Dukas, H. (1972). Albert Einstein: Creator and rebel. The Viking Press.
Issacson, W. (2007). Einstein: His life and universe [Kindle version]. https://amzn.to/3d02WYx
Jaba, E., Roman, M. D., Pagliacci, M., Serban, D., Balan, C. B., & Asandului, M. (2009). Statistical evaluation of the students’ perception

of creativity. In International Conference on Education, Research and Innovation, ICERI 2008 Proceedings, Madrid, Spain.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1328296

Karadag, O., & Aktas, S. (2012). Optimal sample size determination for ANOVA designs. International Journal of Applied Mathematics
and Statistics, 25, 127-134.

K ar wowsk i, M. (2010). Are creative students really welcome in the classrooms? I mplicit theor ies of “good ” and
“creative” student’s personality among polish teachers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1233-1237.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.179

Kreitler, S., & Casakin, H. (2009). Self-perceived creativity: the perspective of design. European Journal of Psychological Assessment,
25(3), 194-203. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.25.3.194

Lakatos, I. (1994). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In J. Worrall and G. Currie (eds.), The
methodology of scientific research programmes: Philosophical papers Vol. 1 (pp. 9-101). Cambridge University Press.

Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, G. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and
meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497-521.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034

Liu, S. C., & Lin, H. S. (2014). Primary teachers’ beliefs about scientific creativity in the classroom context. International Journal of
Science Education, 36(10), 1551-1567. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.868619

Park, J. (2004). A suggestion of cognitive model of scientific creativity. Journal of the Korean Association for the Science Education,

https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.67

STUDENT, PARENT AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS ON THE BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY AND THE IMPLICATIONS TO ENHANCE STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC
CREATIVITY
(pp. 67-79)

79

Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2021

ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/

24(2), 375-386.
Park, J., Jang, K. A., & Kim, I. (2009). An analysis of the actual processes of physicists’ research and the implications for teaching

scientific inquiry in school. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 111-129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9079-8
Peter-Szarka, S. (2012). Creative climate as a means to promote creativity in the classroom. Electric Journal of Research in

Educational Psychology, 10(3), 1011-1031.
Richardson, C., & Mishra, P. (2018). Learning environments that support student creativity: Developing the SCALE. Thinking Skills

and Creativity, 27, 45-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.11.004
Rubenstein, L. D., Ridgley, L. M., Callan, G. L., Karami, S., & Ehlinger, J. (2018). How teachers perceive factors that influence

creativity development: Applying a social cognitive theory perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 100-110.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.012

Runco, M. A., Johnson, D. J., & Bear, P. K. (1993). Parents’ and teachers’ implicit theories of children’s creativity. Child Study Journal,
23(2), 91-113.

Russell, C. A. (1999). Michael Faraday: Physics and faith [Kindle version]. https://amzn.to/30u3e51
Segre, E. (2012). From falling bodies to radio waves: Classical physicists and their discoveries [Kindle version]. https://amzn.to/3cZgwLF
Shin, W., & Park, J. (2020). Developing a list of behavioral characteristics of creative physicists during their growth period.

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10082-w
Singh, R. P. (1987). Parental perception about creative children. Creative Child & Adult Quarterly, 12, 39-42.
Sternberg, R. J., & O’hara, L. A. (1999). Creativity and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 251–272).

Cambridge University press.
Walberg, H. J. (1988). Creativity and talent as learning. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 340-361). Cambridge

University Press.
Zion, M., Slezak , M., Shapira, D., Link , E., Bashan, N., Brumer, M., Orian, T., Nussinowitz, R., Cour t, D., Agrest, B.,

Mendelovici, R., & Valanides, N. (2004). Dynamic, open inquiry in biology learning.  Science Education,  88(5), 728-753.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10145

Received: July 21, 2020 Accepted: January 03, 2021

Cite as: Lee, I., & Park, J. (2021). Student, parent and teacher perceptions on the behavioral characteristics of scientific
creativity and the implications to enhance students’ scientific creativity. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 20(1), 67-79.
https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.67

Insun Lee PhD in Science Education, Assistant Professor, Department of Physics
Education, College of Education, Chungbuk National University,
28644, Cheongju, Republic of Korea.
E-mail: [email protected]
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1623-857X

Jongwon Park
(Corresponding author)

PhD in Science Education, Professor, Department of Physics Education,
College of Education, Chonnam National University, 61186, Gwangju.
Republic of Korea.
E-mail: [email protected]
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8675-3094

https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.67

STUDENT, PARENT AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS ON THE BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY AND THE IMPLICATIONS TO ENHANCE STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC

CREATIVITY
(pp. 67-79)

© 2021. This work is published under
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (the “License”).

Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this
content in accordance with the terms of the License.

Education and Science

Vol 41 (2016) No 183 181-197

181

The Predictive Level of Emotional Intelligence for the Domain-specific

Creativity: A Study on Gifted Students

Feyzullah Şahin 1, Esin Özer 2, Mehmet Engin Deniz 3

Abstract Keywords

The relationship between intelligence, emotional intelligence and

creative thinking skills is complicated, multi-layered and multi-

dimensional. The general purpose of this study is to determine

the relationship between emotional intelligence of the students

and their domain-specific creativity and the effect of emotional

intelligence in predicting domain-specific creativity. Two different

high schools were accepted as the study group and the data

obtained from 239 gifted students was included into the study. In

the study, the Creativity Tests for Kaufman Domains adapted by

Şahin (2015b, 2015c) and the Trait Emotional Intelligence

Questionnaire–Short Form adapted by Deniz, Özer and Işık (2013)

were employed. The results of analysis revealed that the sociality

which is one of the sub-dimensions of emotional intelligence was

in relation with the entire creativity subdomain and self/

everyday creativity subdimension was in relation with the entire

emotional intelligence dimensions. Moreover, it was determined

that sociability could predict academic creativity, artistic

performance and self/ everyday creativity whereas the other

dimensions failed in doing it.

Gifted

Emotional intelligence

Domain-specific creativity

Creative thinking

Article Info

Received: 08.04.2015

Accepted: 20.01.2016

Online Published: 17.02.2016

DOI: 10.15390/EB.2016.4576

Introduction

The history of studies for understanding and defining intelligence dates back to Plato and

Conficius. Both philosophers regarded intelligence as a gift of god for human beings (Ziegler and

Heller, 2000) and brought proposals for identifying and supporting the gifted individuals (Mönks,

Heller, and Passow, 2000). Since the ancient times, another skill which draws the attention of human

beings has been creativity as well as intelligence. Plato wrote his opinion about the creativity process

in poetry as a response to Socrates (Rothenberg and Hausman, 1976, as cited in Sak, 2014).

The relationship between intelligence and creativity is multilayered, multidimensional and

complicated. This situation beclouds the assessment of both concepts independent from each other.

When the term emotional intelligence which enables the productive and effective use of both

structures is added, on the other hand, it becomes much more difficult to solve the puzzle. The general

purpose of this study is to analyze the levels of emotional intelligence among the gifted students on

their creativity. Within this scope, the emotional intelligence, the relationship between emotional

1 Düzce University, Faculty of Education, Department of Special Education, Turkey, [email protected]
2 Düzce University, Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Sciences, Turkey, [email protected]
3 Yıldız Technical University, Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Sciences, Turkey, [email protected]

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

182

intelligence and giftedness, giftedness-creativity and emotional intelligence-creativity will be

discussed and then the conceptual framework of the creativity sub-fields will be outlined.

Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence is a concept which is defined as comprehending, explaining and

managing own feelings and the feelings of others (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso and Sitarenios, 2001).

Although emotions are common for entire human beings, individuals process their emotions and

differentiate in using those (Petrides and Furnham, 2003). In order to express the emotions effectively

and relevantly in explaining the emotional intelligence, the elements such as having the competences

of managing them (Cooper and Sawaf, 2003), rationalizating the emotions and competence of

receiving and explaining the emotion, using and understanding the emotions to facilitate ideas,

managing the emotions for emotional improvement and competence of managing all draw attention

(Brackett and Warner, 2004).

Petrides and Furnham (2000) consider the emotional intelligence in two forms such as

emotional intelligence as a “trait” and “information processing process”. The Trait Emotional

Intelligence (TEQ) is regarded as self-oriented perceptions related to emotions and located into the

concept of “personality” and includes the individual differences of the individual related to

experiencing, identifying, understanding, organizing and using his/ her own emotions or other people

(Petrides and Funham, 2001). In other words, the trait emotional intelligence emphasizes personal

tendencies in perceiving, processing, organizing and using the emotional information and it includes

qualifications related to personal intrinsic evaluation of the individual (it reflects itself in particular

attitudes and traits such as consistent attitudes in different environments, optimism, safe assertiveness

and empathy).

According to the researches, emotional intelligence increases the levels of adapting strategies.

The individuals with high emotional intelligence may cope with stress better and have larger social

networks; they also may get higher grades in academic performance – through decreasing the

negative effect of the pressure (Petrides, Fredericson and Furnham, 2004). The individuals with higher

emotional competences are the individuals who facilitate having higher levels of life saturation and

subjective well-being; have higher capacities in obtaining, using, perceiving and managing the

emotions of himself/ herself and other people. The individuals with higher emotional competences

have more adequate mechansims to cope with the situation and regard the situation as an opportunity

for their development rather than considering it a threat (Mikolajczak and Limunet, 2008). The more

ability of the individuals for recognizing their own feelings, perceiving the feelings of the others and

manipulate their emotions increase; the more their perception to solve the problems increase (İşmen,

2001). Moreover, the more optimism and skills of expressing feelings which are among the sub-

indicators of emotional intelligence increase among the individuals; the more their life satisfaction

levels increase (Akkan, 2010; Koçak and İçmenoğlu, 2012).

The feature of high emotional intelligence helps the individuals choose the transducer

strategies, reduce the negative feelings and replace the positive emotions. Against the troublesome

events and situations, individuals with high emotional intelligence experience less stress than those

with lower emotional intelligence, during exam, the individuals with higher EQ, levels show

psychological symptoms and somatic complaints lesser than those with lower EQ (Mikolojczak and

Limunet, 2008). Individuals with higher emotional intelligence levels are more successful at regulating

their emotions and evaluating the social clues, better at providing the encouragement in social

relations and they are accepted more by the others (Mavroveli, Petrides, Sangareau&Funham, 2009).

Giftedness – Emotional Intelligence

According to the general intelligence theory suggested by Spearman (1904), the intelligence is

regarded as a general cognitive power that affects all the activities of the individual. Especially after

1980’s, however, this point of view which means the competence levels of individuals might differ and

the domains could be completely independent from each other started to be discussed. One of those

approaches is the theory of emotional intelligence.

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

183

Although the literature related to emotional intelligence is rather large and prosperous, the

number of available studies is relatively limited. In the study of Singh and Sharma (2012), the

performance sub-dimension of WISC-R India version was compared to the scores of intelligence

developed by Schutte and measured using Emotional Intelligence Scale. No significant relation was

obtained between both variants (r= –.26). A similar result was obtained in the study of Haro and

Castejon (2014). The researchers compared the scores obtained from the Spanish version of the

General Intelligence Test developed by Catell (1993) to the scores obtained from the Spanish version of

Trait-Mood-Scale-24 (as cited in Haro and Castejon, 2014). No relationship was determined between

general intelligence and emotional perception, comprehending the emotions, emotional self-

arrangement which is all sub-dimensions of emotional intelligence. In the study of Leana and Köksal

(2007) conducted on total 53 students in the first year of the primary schools which 32 of them were

gifted while 21 of them had an average level of intelligence. No significant relationship was

determined between WISC-R verbal, performance and total scores and Bar-On Emotional Intelligence

Test. In the study of Derksen, Kramer and Katzko (2002), a slight positive and significant relationship

was determined between emotional intelligence and general intelligence (r= .08). On the other hand,

Wolfradtz, Felfe and Köster (2001) determined a nonsignificant negative relationship between verbal

intelligence and self efficacy and a slightly negative significant relationship between perceiving and

verbal intelligence (r = –.17).

In another study, the emotional responses which are effective on the interaction of the

individual with his/ her environment were analyzed from the point of Dabrowski’s hyperalertness

domains. It was determined that the gifted students obtained higher scores-Dabrowski’s

hyperalertness domains – than their peers in kinetic, emotional and intellectual domains while they

obtained similar scores in affective and creativity fields (Yakmacı-Güzel, 2002). The way individual

perceives himself and his interaction with his environment have impact on his emotional intelligence

level (Köksal, 2007). In a similar study, it was analyzed that whether the gifted individuals differ from

their peers from the point of the density and qualification of their interaction with other people and

personality traits having indirect impacts on them the data was compiled through a meta-analysis

study. The studies executed on the personal traits of the gifted people and their peers were compiled

through a meta-analysis study. As a result of the 14 researches which employed MBTI personal traits

inventory, it was determined that the gifted students were more extraverting (51.30%), more

intuitoning (71.60%), more thinking (53.80%) and more perceiving (60.10%) than their peers (Sak,

2004).

In another group of researches, some affective traits to be considered within the context of

emotional intelligence were analyzed. In the aforementioned researches, it was determined that gifted

individuals were in better situation than their peers in the social development and adaptation, they

were sensually happy, controlled and optimistic and they experienced less problems related to the

school discipline, crime and aggressive behaviors (Terman and Oden, 1976). Moreover, they were

determined to be the individuals who can experience emotional density (Chan, 2000; Finley, 2008;

Terman and Oden, 1976), having advanced level of feelings of humor and aesthetics (Finley, 2008), are

into their independency (Durr, 1979; Endepohls-Ulpe and Ruf, 2005; Terman and Oden, 1976), having

more developed self-conception than their peers (Durr, 1979), internally motivated individuals (Chan,

2000). While interpreting the research findings in this group, however, it should be considered that the

occurrence levels of those behaviors might suddenly become distinct (Gross, 2004; Özbay and Palancı,

2011) and might emerge in any period of the developmental process (VanTassel-Baska, 1998).

Giftedness – Creativity

The relationship between intelligence and creativity is another research subject which draws

the most attention and employs the most contradictory results in the literature. It was mainly aimed to

explain the aforementioned relationship using threshold hypothesis in the studies. According to this

hypothesis, an individual should at least have a medium-level intelligence in order to exhibit creative

performance and the rate of relationship between intelligence and creativity is expected to be higher

below 120 IQ scores than the individuals having the scores over 120 IQ (Kim, Cramond and

VanTassel-Baska, 2010; Runco, 2007). The findings from a group of studies (Cho, Nijenhuis,

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

184

VanVianen, Kim and Lee, 2010; Fuchs-Beauchamp, Karnes and Johnson, 1993; Şahin, 2014) support the

hypothesis while some others had contradictory findings (Kim, 2005; Runco and Albert, 1986; Runco,

Millar, Acar and Cramond, 2010; Preckel, Holling and Wiese, 2006; Sligh, Conners and Roskos-

Ewoldsen, 2005).

In a group of studies, the relationship between intelligence and creativity was analyzed

ignoring the threshold effect. In this context, a relationship with general intelligence at the levels of r=

.34, .12, .20 and .21 (respectively, Batey, Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham, 2009; McCloy and Meier,

1931, as cited in Ogurlu, 2014; Silvia, 2008), the fluid intelligence rate of r= .43, .26 and .21 (Batey,

Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham, 2009; Batey, Furnham and Safiullina, 2010; Virgolim, 2005) was

determined. In addition to this, there are also studies where no significant relationship was obtained

(Furnham, Zhang and Chamorro-Premuzic, 2006; Plucker, 2010; Richmond, 1966; Sanchez – Ruiz,

Hernandez – Torrano, Perez – Gonzalez, Batey and Furnham, 2011; Solomon, 1967; Yoon, 2005). Even,

there are studies reporting negative correlation (Batey and Furnham, 2006). The results of a study

which analyzed the scores of WISC-R sub-dimension and sub-scores of Torrance Creativity Thinking

Test (TTCT) through factor analysis technique indicate that intelligence and creativity are different

structures (Şahin, 2015a).

According to Jauk and others (2013), the main reason for the occurrence of different and

contradictory results in the studies which the relationship between intelligence and creativity is

analyzed is that the criteria of 120 IQ score which was regarded as the threshold value is deprived of

experimental proof. In addition to this opinion, Şahin (2014) stated that this occasion results from the

different criteria of assessment tools and the nature of the assessed groups. According to Şahin, -in

addition to this opinion– the reason for this occasion comes from the different criteria in the

evaluation instruments employed in various researches and nature of the evaluated groups. The

emerging of different findings is among the factors which cause this occassion.

Emotional Intelligence-Creativity

The multi-dimensional nature of the creativity depends on the interaction between personal

traits of the individual, his/ her cognitive competence, thinking style and motivation (Amabile, 1983,

1996; Sternberg and Lubart, 1991). Creative thinking differentiates as creative potential and creative

performance. Since potential dimension was reviewed in this study, the sub-title will be limited within

this context.

Creative potential has two important critera. They are divergent thinking (Guilford, 1966) and

creative personality traits. The findings from the studies of Barron and Harrington (1981), Runco

(1994) and Feist (1999) summarize the general personality traits seen in the individuals with high

creativity. In one of their collected works, Barron and Harrington (1981) which classified the

individuals with higher creativity have common interests, high aesthetical criteria, risk-taking,

energetic, they are able to make independent decisions, internally motivated, interrogator, self-

confident and having ability to bring different perspectives. Runco (1994) defines the individuals with

high creativity as the people who are successful in coping with difficulties and can manage the tension

effectively. The creative individuals have higher tendency to new experiences and ideas and they can

give independent decisions. They can convince others related to the quality of their opinions and use

social competencies effectively. In one of his studies, Feist (1999) summarized the traits of the

individuals with high creative achievement in the domains of art and science. He reported that the

scientists are open to new experiences, more traditionalist, having high self-confident, having high

self-perception, internally oriented, ambitious and aggressive. The artists were determined to be more

affective, a nonstationary mood, having lower social competencies and less accepted by the group

members than the scientists. According to Russ (1998), the personal traits related to emotions facilitate

creativity. The executed studies point out two emotional traits. They are sensitivity to emotions

(perceiving and expressing emotions) and self-control (regulation of emotions and stress control)

(Feist, 1998).

The relationships between divergent thinking and personality traits of the individual were

analyzed by a group within the content of “Big Five personality traits”. In those studies, a positive

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

185

relationship was determined between divergent thinking and being open to new experiences

(Furnham, Batey, Anand and Manfield, 2008; Furnham and Bachtiar, 2008; McCrae and Costa, 1997),

extravertion (Batey et al., 2009; Furnham et al., 2008; Furnham and Bachtiar, 2008), agreeableness and

conscientiousness (Furnham and Bachtiar, 2008). In a study by Batey, Furnham and Safiulluna (2010),

on the other hand, no significant relationship was determined divergent thinking fluency rates and

personality traits. Even, there is a study which has found a negative relationship with

conscientiousness (Furnham and Bachtiar, 2008).

In a meta-analysis study which employed eighty three studies on scientific and artistic

creativity, a positive relationship was found between extraversion, openness and neuroticism while a

negative relationship was found between agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Feist, 1998). In a

longitudional study of 45 years which Soldz and Vaillant (1999) executed on 163 males, a positive

relation with openness was determined (r= .40) while a negative relation with agreeableness (r= –.27)

was determined. No significant relationship was determined in the other three personality traits.

In another study which Wolfradtz, Felfe and Köster (2001) analyzed the relationships between

the emotional intelligence and five major personality traits; a positive relationship was determined

between the dimensions of self-efficiacy, empathy and utilization and extraversion, openness,

agreeableness, and conscientiousness (respectively, r= .42, .16, .28, .45, .27, .33, .27, .21, .24, and .21); a

significant and positive relationship was determined between the dimension of perceiving and

extraversion and agreeableness (r= .16 and .15); a negative relationship was found between emotional

balance and self-efficiacy and empathy (r= –.52 and –.16) while a non-significant relationship was

found between neuroticism and utilization and perception. Moreover, significant relationships were

determined between creative personality scale and self-efficiacy, empathy, utilization and perception

(respectively, r= .55, .40, .33, and .36). A similar study was conducted by Sanchez – Ruiz and others

(2011). The researchers found significant and positive relationships between well-being, self-control,

sociability and global emotional intelligence and creative personality (respectively; r = .19, .19, .40, and

.29), and nonsignificant relations were determined with emotionality. Significant relationships were

determined between the total of divergent thinking test TTCT and openness (r= .29) and neuroticism

(r= .23) while non-significant relations were found in other dimensions. Moreover, a negative relation

was determined between the total of TTCT and self-control (r= –.10); a positive relationship was

determined with sociality (r= .03) yet the relationships in the dimensions of well-being, emotionality

and global emotional intelligence weren’t significant. In the doctoral thesis which Bender (2006)

collected data from 80 university students, significant and slight reltionships were determined

between the originality, flexibility and fluency scores of TTCT Verbal Form and total score of Bar-On

Emotional Intelligence Scale (r = .23, .26 and .25, respectively).

Creativity Sub-Fields: Conceptional Framework

One of the contemporary discussions in the literary of creativity is whether creativity is a

domain-specific or a general aspect. According to Guilford (1966), the creative thinking ability (which

he described as divergent thinking) is a general cognitive characteristics which emerges in various

fields such as art and science. According to Gardner (2009), it describes human cognition – in the

theory of multiple intelligence which he presented in 1983 for the first time – as mutual interaction of

numerous factors. The factors are relatively independent from each other and they differ from each

other from two aspects. The first of them is the basic data processing operations employed for each

mental process function according to their domain-specific principles. The second one is that data

processing operations which are in direct interaction with domain-specific forms of the information. In

the specific occassions, an activity/process may occur in more than one intellectual field. The creative

responses may emerge depending on the interactions between domain-specific knowledge, skills and

educational life. The Creativity Componential Model of Amabile (1983, 1996) and the Amusement

Park Theory by Kaufman and Baer (2004b) are theoretical approaches supporting the idea that

creativity is domain-specific. In various experimental studies, there are results supporting both

perspectives. In a group study, it was found that creativity is domain-specific (Baer, 1991, 1994, 1996,

2003; Baer, Kaufman and Gentile, 2004; Han, 2003; Hickey, 2001) while another group of studies

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

186

revealed that creativity is a general characteristic (Conti, Coon and Amabile, 1996; Eunsook and

Milgram, 1995).

One of the topics which incorporates no concensus in literature of creativity is the sub-fields of

creativity. Various researchers conducted studies considering various sub-fields (For the sample

studies; Ayas and Sak, 2014; Carson, Peterson and Higgins, 2005; Kaufman, 2012; Kaufman and Baer,

2004a; Kaufman, Cole and Baer, 2009; Oral, Kaufman and Agars, 2007; Rawlings and Locarnini, 2007).

In this study, the creativity sub-fields presented by Kaufman (2012) was considered. The

aforementioned researcher conceptualized creativity in five sub-fields. They are scholarly,

mechanical/scientific, artistic performance, self/ everyday and art.

While scholarly (academic) creativity is developed, the intellectual creativity by Ivcevic and

Mayer (2009), the language field by Feist (2004) and linguistic intelligence field of Gardner (1999) were

considered. Mechanical/scientific creativity is theoretically based on the logical-methematical

intelligence and naturalist intelligence by Gardner, intellectual creativity by Ivcevic and Mayer and

scientific factor by Carson and others (2005). The field artistic performance was developed considering

bodily/ kinesthetic and musical intelligence by Gardner, performance arts by Ivcevic and Mayer and

musical field of Feist. Self/ everyday creativity field is based on the interpersonal and intrapersonal

intelligence by Gardner and creative life style by Ivcevic and Mayer The theoretical infrastructure of

the field of art was presented through inspiring from the spatial intelligence by Gardner, the art factor

by Carson and others and the field of art by Feist.

In brief, there are scattered and contradictory results in the studies which the relationships

between giftedness-creativity and emotional intelligence-creativity are analyzed. There is limited

availability of researches in the literature related to the relationships between intelligence and

emotional intelligence while there is limited number of studies consisting the analysis of the

relationship between the general intelligence scores of the individuals and their emotional intelligence

scores and which is related to the gifted people. However, gifted individuals differ from their peers

according to with their both cognitive traits and socio-emotional traits (Detailed information: Saranlı

and Metin, 2012; Özbay and Palancı, 2011; Şahin and Kargın, 2014). According to Shiyko, Rim and

Grimm (2012), on the other hand, some sub-groups which data is collected from may have different

ranges. Hair, Hult, Ringle and Sarstedt (2014) suggest reviewing and defining unobserved mixed

groups in the sampling in order to avoid the possible mistakes that may emerge during the analysis of

the data set containing mixed groups. In other words, the scores of those sub-groups should be

computed separately when there are possible sub-groups which may distort the homogeneity in the

study group (Bryne, 2010). Considering the fact that the socio-emotional traits of the gifted students

might differ from their peers and there are contradictory results and statistical suggestions in the

literature, it was concluded that conducting the study with the individuals with gifted would provide

more healthy results.

The general purpose of this study is to analyze whether there is a relationship between

emotional intelligence and creativity among the gifted students and the effect of their emotional

intelligence in predicting their creativity. The answers will be sought for the following questions

within the context of this general purpose:

1. Is there a significant relationship between domain-specific creativity of the gifted students

(academic, mechanic/scientific, artistic performance, self/everyday, and art) and their

emotional intelligence (well-being, self-control, emotionality, sociability, global emotional

intelligence)?

2. Does the emotional intelligence of the gifted students significantly predict their domain-

specific creativity?

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

187

Methods

Study Group

The study was conducted on the students4 of two different science high schools in 2014-2015

educational years. The schools where data was collected were chosen among the schools in the 3%

percentile and according to the principles of easily accessible convenience sampling. One of the high

schools was public high school while the other was a private enterprise. In order to enroll to the

aforementioned high schools, there is an exam to pass secondary education from the basic education

(TEOG) which is conducted all over the country and is a mixture of competence and achievement tests

is required. In the TEOG exam, the students who ranked in the first one percent share all over Turkey

were enrolled to the science high school of private enterprises while those who were in the first 2.75

percent share were enrolled to the science high schools of public enterprises (Ministry of National

Education, 2014). Data was collected from 239 students through Trait Emotional Intelligence Scale-

Short Form (TEQ-SF) and Kaufman Domains Creativity Scale (KDOCS). Of all the students, 122 of

them (51.05%) were females (48 of them in the 9 th grade, 35 of them in the 10.th grade, 23 of them in

the first grade and 16 of them are in ythe 11.th grade) and 111 of them (46.44%) were males (40 of them

in the 4.th grade, 30 of them were were in the 10.th grade, 21 are in the 11.th grade and 20 of them

were in the 12.th grade). 6 of the students (2.51%) didn’t state their gender or grade. The students are

voluntarily participated the research. The data of research was analyzed through using 16.0 version of

SPSS package program.

Data Collecting Instruments

Trait Emotional Intelligence Scale-Short Form (TEQ-SF): TEQ-SF is a scale developed by Petrides

and Furnham (2000, 2001) based upon the conceptualization of emotional intelligence as a “trait of

personal character”. The scale was adapted into Turkish by Deniz, Özer and Işık (2013). The

adaptation was sustained with 464 students attending university. As a result of the adaptation, a

structure consisting of 20 items and four factors was asserted. As a result of Confirmatory Factor

Analysis (CFA), the fit indices of the model were determined as; χ2/df= 2.46, GFI= .95, AGFI= .92, CFI=

.91, RMSEA= .056, and SRMR= .060. Two different types of scores are obtained from the scale. The

internal consistency reliability coefficient of TEQ-SF; .72 for well-being factor, .70 for self-control, .66

for emotionality, .70 for sociability .81 for the totaly scale and test-repeat reliability score was

calculated as .86. The internal consistency reliability coefficients of this research are given in Table 1.

The scale was prepared in seven point likert scale. The minimum score which may be obtained from

sub-dimensions is 4 while maximum score is 28. Moreover, another score which is called as global

emotional intelligence score might be obtained from the scale. The range of the scores to be obtained

from the scale is between 4 and 28. Three field experts were consulted about whether the scale

adjusted for the university students could provide convenient results for the gifted students of high

schools and it was decided to employ in this study upon the responses of those experts stating that

positive results could be obtained without any alterations in the measurement instrument.

Kaufman Domains Creativity Scale (KDOCS): Through the scale consisting 50 items and

developed by Kaufman (2012) with the approach stating that creativity appears in a “domain-specific”

form, the creativity skills in the academic, mechanical/ scientific, artificial performances, self/ everyday

and art domains. The scale is assessments according to self-evaluation method. The scale was adapted

4 According to the Theory of Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness, giftedness emerges depending on the interaction between

motivation, creative abilities and above average ability (Renzulli, 2005). In the description of the aforementioned individuals,

numerous instruments with various characteristics from intelligence or creativitiy tests to general ability test may be used

separately or together. Within the framework of the description by Renzulli, the science high schools in Turkey may be

regarded as private schools which serve to gifted (gifted and talented students in the intellectual fields) (Sak, 2007). According

to the description accepted by the Ministry of National Education (2012), “The individuals who display higher level

performances than their peers from the points of intelligence, creativity, art, sports, leadership capacity or in the special

academic fields” are regarded gifted. According to this definition, the students who are within the 2-3% percentile and attend

science high schools may be considered as gifted within the context of “special academic ability”.

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

188

into Turkish by Şahin (2015b, 2015c). In order to bring KDOCS into Turkish, the consent was obtained

from James C. Kaufman through e-mail. Then, the adaptation activities started. For the language

equivalence of KDOCS, the scale was translated into Turkish from English by two expertisized people

who know both English and Turkish well. Afterwards, the form which had been previously translated

into Turkish was re-translated into English from Turkish by two different people who are experts in

their field. Those translation forms were compared by two people who are experts in their field and

they were finalized. The adaptation activity was conducted on 254 gifted students attending science

high schools. As a result of the adaptation, a structure with 42 items and five factors were presented.

The fit indices of the CFA model was found as; χ²(765)= 1480.75 p< .01; χ²/Sd= 1.93, RMSEA= .06, SRMR=

.074, CFI= .93, and GFI= .78. The internal consistency reliability coefficient of KDOCS was found as .87

for academic creativity, .84 for mechanic/ scientific creativity, .86 for creativity in the field of artisitic

performance, .77 for self-everyday creativity, .83 for art creativity, and .90 for the totaly scale. The

internal consistency reliability coefficients of this research are given in Table 1. The scale is in five

point likert form. The scores to be obtained from sub-dimensions are as follows; 5-55 for creativity, 7-

35 for mechanic/ scientific, 9-45 for artistic performance and self/ everyday, 5-25 for art field, and 42-

201 for totaly scale.

Findings

First of all, it was tested in the study that whether TEQ-SF developed for pre-analysis on the

university students would provide similar results for gifted students. As a result of CFA, t values of

the observed and unobservable variants were found to be significant (p< .01). Model fit indices are as

computed; χ²(98)= 189.64 p< .01; χ²/Sd= 1.94, RMSEA= .063, SRMR= .066, CFI= .94, AGFI= .88, and GFI=

.91. As a result of CFA, it was concluded that TEQ-SF scale could provide convenient results. After

then, the arithmetic mean, standart deviation and Cronbach α internal consistency coefficients of the

responses of the participants for the questions of the scale were measured.

Table 1. The Descriptive Statistics and Internal Consistency Coefficients of TEQ-SF and KDOCS

Measurement Instruments Sub-domains / Scores
Scores

α
SS

TEQ-SF

Well-being 19.54 4.55 .66

Self-control 17.65 6.06 .60

Emotionality 19.31 4.05 .60

Sociability 20.48 4.63 .61

Global emotional intelligence 19.15 4.79 .64

KDOCS

Academic 33.90 7.26 .83

Mechanic/ scientific 20.03 6.09 .80

Artistic performance 25.83 8.45 .86

Self/ everyday 32.24 4.66 .67

Art 14.45 4.57 .75

The the arithmetic means and standard deviation of the scores from two measurement

instruments are given in Table 1. The Cronbach α internal consistency coefficients for measurement

instruments were calculated as .91 for KDOCS while sub-tests are within the range of .83 – .67. TEQ-SF

sub-tests are within the range of .60–.66. In the study, it was analyzed that whether there is a

relationship between the domains of emotional sub-score and the domain of creativity.

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

189

Table 2. The Relationships Between Sub-Dimensions of KDOCS and TEQ-SF

KDOCS
TEQ-SF

Well-being Self-control Emotionality Sociability General EQ

Academic -.002 -.021 .124 .236** .099

Mechanic/ Scientific .108 .049 -.072 .127* .082

Artistic performance -.007 -.084 .084 .211** .011

Self/ Everyday .145* .193** .229** .311** .279**

Arts -.036 -.057 .010 .144* .051

N= 239, *p< .05, **p< .01.

As seen in Table 2, a positive, slight and significant relationship was determined between the

sub-scores of sociability and mechanic/ scientific, artistic performance, self/ everyday and art (r= .236,

.211, .311, and .284, p<.05; r= .127, and .144, p<.01). Moreover, a similar relationship was found between

TEQ-SF sub-scores and self/ everyday creativity. (r= .145, p<.01; r= .193, .229, .311, and .279, p<.05). No

significant relationship was observed between the other sub-scores of KDOCS and TEQ-SF (p>.05). In

the study, emotional intelligence sub-domains were examined predictors of creativity sub-domains.

Table 3. The Results of Regression Analysis

KDOCS Sub-fields R R2 F β t

Academic .271 .073 3.694 .249 3.337*

Artistic performance .271 .073 3.685 .057 .769*

Self / Everyday .356 .127 6.762 .214 2.955*

N= 239, * p< .001.

It was analyzed through hierarchical regression analysis that whether the TEQ-SF well-being,

self-control, emotionality and sociality sub-scales and global intelligence scores predict KDOCS

academic, mechanic/scientific, artistic performance, self/everyday and artistic creativity scores or not.

The results of analysis indicate that KDOCS-SF doesn’t provide significant contributions to the

regression model established so that the sub-dimensions except its sociality dimension and global

emotional intelligence score can predict creativity sub-fields. The sociality diemension can

significantly predict only creativity fields of academic, artistic performances and self/everyday.

The analyses which provide significant contributions to the regression model are given in

Table 3. It was determined that Sociality sub-dimension of TEQ-SF (β= .249) could significantly predict

academic creativity score (R= .271, R2= .073, F(5-233)= 3.694, p<.001) and it could explain .07% of the total

variance. It was also determined that sociality score (β= .057) could predict artistic performance

creativity score significantly (R= .271, R2= .073, F(5-233)= 3.685, p<.001) and could explain .07% of the total

variance. It was determined that sociality scores (β= .214) could significantly predict the self/everyday

creativity scores (R= .356, R2= .127, F(5-233)= 6.762, p<.001) and explain .13% of the total variance.

Discussions, Conclusions and Suggestions

In the study, it was found that there was a significant relationship between the entire sociality

and subfields of creativity while there was a significant relationship between self/ everyday creativity

and the subfields of emotional intelligence. A significant relationship was seen between the entire

emotional intelligence sub-fields and self/ everyday creativity and between sociability and the entire

creativity sub-domains. No significant relationship was determined among the other sub-dimensions.

In the literature, no study which the relationship between self/ everyday creativity field and emotional

intelligence sub-dimensions is studied was obtained. In the study of Sancez – Ruiz and others (2011), a

slight, positive and significant relationship was found between general creativity skills and sociability.

On the other hand, no significant relation was determined between general creativity and well-being,

emotional, and global emotional intelligence. These results were parallel to the findings of this study.

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

190

On the other hand, a slight, significant and negative relationship was observed between the general

creativity and self-control in the same study. This result is contradictory to the findings of this study.

Moreover, significant, positive and slight relationships were determined between socibiality and

academic, mechanical/ scientific, artistic performance and arts domains. In the study conducted by

Sancez – Ruiz and others no significant relationship was seen among fluency, flexibility, elaboration

and originality sub-scores while a positive, significant and slight relationship was found with the total

score.

The TCTT total score reported in their study by Sancez – Ruiz and others was obtained in four

sub-score types. According to Torrance (1974, as cited in Cramond, Matthews-Morgan, Zuo, Bandalos,

2005), using total creativity scores isn’t a convenient way to obtain information related to the details of

creativity among the individuals. Thus, the findings of Sancez–Ruiz and others should be considered

within the frame of that limitedness.

Researchers’ think that the basic reason of the significant relationship between emotional

intelligence sub-dimensions and self/everyday creativity is that it may occur depending on its

theoretically originating from internal or inter-personal intelligence. In other words, this sub-

dimension contains affective skills. The studies show that there is a relationship between creative

personality traits and divergent thinking abilities (For a detailed meta-analysis; Feist, 1998). Moreover,

those findings may be indirectly explained using over-excitability field s discussed by Dabrowski. One

of the fields where gifted students are over- excitability is the sensory field which indicates over-

excitability related to the senses (Yakmacı-Güzel, 2002). The results of the study is parallel to those of

this research.

Significant, positive relationships were determined between sociability and entire sub-fields of

creativity. When the item pool consisting of TEQ-SF sociability scores, it is seen that this dimension

includes the traits of effectively coping with problems, having the ability to discuss, being able to

defend their right even in the hard positions and affecting the emotions of other people. It may be

concluded that those traits substantially overlaps with general personality traits of creative

individuals. The personality traits of individuals are effective factors in the emergence of creativity

(Amabile, 1983, 1996; Sak, 2009, 2014; Sternberg and Lubart, 1991). According to Feist (1998),

moreover, the sensitivity to the emotions is the occassion which facilitates creativity. Sensitivity to the

emotions indicates the status of emotions which were indirectly mentioned under the title of sociality.

The result of this study supports these findings. Moreover, it may be concluded that the sociality

dimension might be found significant as a result of the better status of gifted students than their peers

from the point of social development and compliance, their joyful and optimist psychological state

from the point of sensuality (Terman and Oden, 1976) and their activeness in numerous fields (Reis

and Renzulli, 2004).

When the matter is examined from the point of another view; it is seen that the creativity

thinking abilities in the “Amusement Park Theory” presented by Kaufman and Baer (2004) consists of

general and specific creativity domains skills. In the study of Sancez–Ruiz and others (2011), a positive

and significant relationship was reported between general creativity and sociability. When the

findings of aforementioned research and this research are assessed together, sociability sub-dimension

of emotional intelligence seems to be the trait which is effective in the emergence of general and

domain-specific creativity.

Another problem which was examined in the research is the question whether emotional

intelligence sub-domains predict the creativity fields or not. The results of analysis may separately

explain well-being, self-control, emotionality, sociability and sub-dimension of global emotional

intelligence but only sociability dimension is a significant predictor on creativity domains. This

occasion is the same for the dimensions of artistic performances and self/ everyday creativity. In the

study of Sancez–Ruiz and others (2011), it was seen that other sub-dimensions except social traits

don’t predict general creativity.

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

191

In the literature, there is limited number of studies which the relationship between divergent

thinking abilities (general creativity) and emotional intelligence is examined. These studies were

conducted on different groups except gifted individuals. Moreover, no study which the relationship

between traits emotional intelligence of the gifted individuals and domain-specific creativity or

whether it predicts the creativity was obtained. For that reason, this study had to compare the findings

through indirect evidences. However, it may be regarded as the indicator that showing the originality

of this study from these two aspects.

In this study, self-evaluation method was employed in order to assess the skills related to

creativity. This occasion is the limitedness which may mask the findings of the study. By its nature,

self-evaluation method employs a problem of carelessly given answers (Silvia, Wigert, Reiter –

Palmon and Kaufman, 2012) or the parallelism high/ low scores obtained from measurement

instruments with the feedbacks of the teachers (Beghetto, 2006). However, this method is a highly

informative application in the occasions which no information is available related to the creative

thinking abilities of the participants (Kaufman, Evans and Baer, 2010). In order to avoid the

limitedness thay may arise from data collecting instruments chosen in this study; some precautions

such as providing students enough time to complete the evaluation instrument, interpreting the

results individually and eliminating the opportunity to compete and excluding the extreme values

from the analysis.

The researchers who may be interested in the topic may conduct a study on the domain-

specific creativity of the individuals such as specific to a different domain, general or emotional

intelligence traits. Numerous studies show that there is a latent relationship between intelligence-

emotional intelligence and creativity. Another limitedness of the study is that the study which KDOCS

was adopted was used in a notice and the expanded version of the aforementioned study is in the

process of publication in a journal. In order to avoid this limitedness, the factor structure, validity and

reliability values of KDOCS was summarized under the sub-title of “Data Collection Tools”.

This study is limited with the gifted students determined with the general talent test to attend

to science high schools. Thus, different results may be obtained depending on the employment of

measurement instruments which emotional intelligence is conceptualized as a “data processing

operation” or among the students with the diagnosis of giftedness through using various evaluation

instruments such as intelligence or creativity test. Moreover, more detailed information related to the

topic may be achieved through the comparative studies including various creativity fields such as

science, art and writing and various intelligence levels. The findings to be obtained through this

method in the education programs prepared for the development of both emotional intelligence and

creativity has great significance. In other words, the education programs to be presented with the

purpose of developing those skills and increasing its productivity will be parallel to the determination

of starting point among the participants.

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

192

References

Akkan, E. (2010). Research on prediction power of emotional intelligence and creativity level of secondary

education grade gifted children’s life satisfaction (Unpublished master thesis). Gaziosmanpaşa

University Institute of Social Science, Tokat.

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357-376, doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Colarado,

Boulder: Westview Press.

Ayas, B., & Sak, U. (2014). Objective measure of scientific creativity: Psychometric validity of the

creative scientific ability test. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 13, 195-205.

Baer, J. (1991). Generality of creativity across performance domains. Creativity Research Journal, 4(1), 23-

39, doi:10.1080/10400419109534371

Baer, J. (1994). Divergent thinking is not a general trait: A multi–domain thinking experiment.

Creativity Research Journal, 7(1), 35−46, doi:10.1080/10400419409534507

Baer, J. (1996). The effect of task–specific divergent–thinking training. Journal of Creative Behavior, 30(3),

183-187, doi:10.1002/j.2162–6057.1996.tb00767.x

Baer, J. (2003). The impact of the core knowledge curriculum on creativity. Creativity Research Journal,

15(2, 3), 297-300, doi:10.1080/10400419.2003.9651422

Baer, J., Kaufman, J. C., & Gentile, C. A. (2004). Extension of the consensual assessment technique to

nonparallel creative products. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 113–117,

doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1601_11

Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review

Psychology, 32, 439-476.

Batey, M., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2009). Intelligence and personality as predictors of

divergent thinking: The role of general, fluid and crystallised intelligence. Thinking Skills and

Creativity, 4, 60-69.

Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the

scatter literature. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 132(4), 355-429.

Batey, M., Furnham, A., & Safiullina, X. (2010). Intelligence, general knowledge and personality as

predictors of creativity. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 532-535,

doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.04.008.

Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative self-efficacy: Correlates in middle and secondary students. Creativity

Research Journal, 18, 447-457.

Bender, M. T. (2006). The Relations between emotional quotient and creativity in the students of painting

education department (Unpublished doctoral thesis). İzmir Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir, Turkey.

Brackett, J., & Warner, R. (2004). EQ and its relation to everyday behaviour. Personality and Individual

Differences, 36, 1387-1402.

Bryne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and

programming (2nd ed.), New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Carson, S., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity and factor structure of the

creative achievement questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 37–50.

doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1701_4

Chan, D. W. (2000). Exploring identification procedures of gifted students by teacher ratings: Parent

ratings and students self-reports in Hong Kong. High Ability Studies, 11(1), 69-82.

Cho, S. H., Nijenhuis, J. T., VanVianen, A. E., Kim, H. B., & Lee, K. H. (2010). The relationship between

diverse components of intelligence and creativity. The Journal of Creative Behaviour, 44, 125-137.

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

193

Conti, R., Coon, H., & Amabile, T. M. (1996). Evidence to support the componential model of

creativity: Secondary analyses of three studies. Creativity Research Journal, 9(4), 385−389,

doi:10.1207/s15326934crj0904_9

Cooper, R. K., & Sawaf, A. (2003). Liderlikte duygusal zeka, (3th ed.). İstanbul: Sistem Publishing.

Cramond, B., Matthews-Morgan, J., Zuo, L., & Bandalos, D. (2005). A report on the 40-year follow-up

of the torrance tests of creative thinking: Alive and well in the new millennium. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 49(4), 283-292.

Deniz, M. E., Özer, E., & Işık, E. (2013). Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Short Form:

Validity and reliability studies. Education and Science, 38(169), 407-419.

Derksen, J., Kramer, I., & Katzko, M. (2002). Does a self-report measure for emotional intelligence

assess something different than general intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 37-

48.

Durr, W. K. (1979). Characteristics of gifted children: Ten years of research. In J. C. Gowan, E. P.

Torrance (Ed.), Educating the ablest: A book of readings on the education of gifted children. (pp. 23-32),

İllinois: Peacock Publisher.

Endepohls-Ulpe, M., & Ruf, H. (2005). Primary school teachers’ criteria for the ıdentification of gifted

pupils. High Ability Studies, 16(2), 219-228.

Eunsook, H., & Milgram, R. M. (2010). Creative thinking ability: Domain generality and specificity.

Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 272–287, doi:10.1080/10400419.2010.503535

Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and

Social Psychology Review, 2, 290-309.

Feist, G. J. (1999). Personality in scientific and artistic creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). Handbook of

human creativity, (pp. 273-296), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Feist, G. J. (2004). The evolved fluid specificity of human creative talent. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L.

Grigorenko and J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 57–82). Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.

Finley, L. T. (2008). Implementing a differentiated model of gifted education: Perspectives of elementary

principlaps and teachers (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis), Archadia University.

Fuchs-Beauchamp K. D., Karnes, M. B., & Johnson, L. J. (1993). Creativity and intelligence in

preschoolers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 113-117.

Furnham, A., & Bachtiar, V. (2008). Personality and intelligence as predictors of creativity, Personality

and Individual Differences, 45, 613-617.

Furnham, A., Batey, M., Anand, K., & Manfield, J. (2008). Personality, hypomania, intelligence and

creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1060-1069.

Furnham, A., Zhang, J., Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2006). The relationship between psychometric and

self-estimated intelligence, creativity, personality, and academic achievement. Imagination,

Cognition and Personality, 10, 251-267.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. New York: Basic

Book.

Gross, M. U. M. (2004). Gifted and talented education professional development package for teachers: Module-

1, The University of South Walles, Retrieved from

https://education.arts.unsw.edu.au/media/EDUCFile/Module1_PRIMARY.pdf.

Guilford, J. P. (1966). Measurement and creativity, Theory into Practice, 5(4), 186-202.

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural

equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage publishing.

Han, K. (2003). Domain–specificity of creativity in young children: How quantitative and qualitative

data support it. Journal of Creative Behavior, 37(2), 117-142, doi:10.1002/j.2162–6057.2003.tb00829.x

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

194

Haro, J. M., & Castejon, J. L. (2014). Perceived emotional intelligence, general intelligence and early

professional success: Predictive and incremental validity. Anales de Psicología, (30)2, 490-498.

Hickey, M. (2001). An application of Amabile’s consensual assessment technique for rating the

creativity of children’s musical compositions. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49, 234−244,

doi:10.2307/3345709

Ivcevic, Z., & Mayer, J. D. (2009). Mapping dimensions of creativity in the life–space. Creativity

Research Journal, 21(2-3), 152-165, doi:10.1080/10400410902855259

İşmen, A. E. (2001). Duygusal zeka ve problem çözme (Emotional intelligence and problam solving).

M. A. Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 13, 111-124.

Jauk, E., Benedek, M., Dunst, B., & Neubauer, A., C. (2013). The relationship between intelligence and

creativity: New support fort he threshold hypothesis by mean of empirical breakpoints detection.

Intelligence, 41(4), 212-221.

Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale

(K–DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 298-308, doi:10.1037/a0029751

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004a). Sure, i’m creative-but not in mathematics!: Self–reported creativity

in diverse domains. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22(2) 143-155.

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004b).The Amusement Park Theoritical Model of creativity. The Korean

Journal of Thinking & Problem Solving, 14(2), 15-25.

Kaufman, J. C., Cole, J. C., & Baer, J. (2009). The construct of creativity: Structural model for self–

reported creativity ratings. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(2), 119-123, doi:10.1002/j.2162–

6057.2009.tb01310.x

Kaufman, J. C., Evans, M., & Baer, J. (2010). The American idol effect: Are students good judges of

their creativity across domains? Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28(1) 3-17, doi:10.2190/EM.28.1.b.

Kim, K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? A meta-analysis, Journal of Secondary Gifted

Education, 16, 57-66.

Kim, K. H., Cramond, B., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (2010). The relationship between creativity and

intelligence. In J. C. Kaufman and R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). Handbook of creativity (pp. 395-412).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Koçak, R., & İçmenoğlu, E. (2012). Emotional intelligence and creativity as predictors of life

satisfaction among gifted students. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 4(37), 73-85.

Köksal, A. (2007). Üstün zekalı çocuklarda duygusal zekayı geliştirmeye dönük program geliştirme çalışması

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). İstanbul: İstanbul University.

Leana, M. Z., & Köksal, A. (2007). Üstün ve normal zihin düzeyindeki öğrencilerin IQ ve EQ’ları

arasındaki ilişki. International Symposium Emotional Intellgince and Communication VI, 1, 140-151.

Mavroveli, S., Petrides, K. V., Sangareau, Y., & Furnham, A. (2009). Exploring the relationships

between trait emotional intelligence to objective socio-emotional outcomes in childhood. British

Journal of Educational Psychology, 9, 259-272.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2001). Emotional intelligence as a standard

intelligence. Emotion, 1, 232–242.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In R.

Hogan, J. A. Johnson and S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 826-848). New

York: Academic Press.

Mikolajczak, M., & Limunet, O. (2008). TEQ and the cognitive appraisal of stressful events: An

exploratory study. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 144-153.

Ministry of National Education, (2012). Özel eğitim hizmetleri yönetmeliği [Special education services

regulation]. Retrieved from http://www.meb.gov.tr.

Ministry of National Education. (2014). E-okul [E-school]. Retrieved from https://e-okul.meb.gov.tr/

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

195

Mönks, F. J., Heller, K. A., & Passow, A. H. (2000). The study of giftedness: Reflection on where we are

and where we going. In A. K. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg and R. F. Subotnik, (Ed),

International handbook of giftedness and talented, (pp. 839-864). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Ogurlu, Ü. (2014). The relationship between intelligence and creativity in children. Mustafa Kemal

Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(27), 337-348.

Oral, G., Kaufman, J. C., & Agars, M. D. (2007). Examining creativity in Turkey: Do western findings

apply? High Ability Studies, 18(2), 235-246, doi:10.1080/13598130701709590

Özbay, Y., & Palancı, M. (2011). Psychosocial characteristics of gifted children and adolecents. Sakarya

Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22, 89-108.

Plucker, J. A. (2010). Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalyses of Torrance’s (1958 to present)

longitudinal data, Creativity Research Journal, 12(2), 103-114, doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1202_3.

Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence.

Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 313-320.

Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric invesitigation with

reference to established trait taxonomies, Europan Journal of Personality, 15, 425-448.

Petrides, K. V., Fredericson, N., & Furnham, A. (2004). The role of trait EQ in academic performance

and deviant behaviours at school. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 277-293.

Preckel, F., Holling, H., & Wiese, M. (2006). Relationship of intelligence and creativity in gifted and

non-gifted students: An investigation of threshold theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 40,

159–170, doi:10.1080/10400410409534553.

Rawlings, D., & Locarnini, A. (2007). Validating the creativity scale for diverse domains using groups

of artists and scientists. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 25, 163-172.

Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2004). Current research on the social and emotional development of gifted

and talented students: Good news and future possibilities. Psychology in the Schools, 41(1), 119-130.

doi:10.1002/pits.10144

Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting

creative productivity, In R. J. Sternberg ve J. E. Davidson, (Ed.). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.)

(pp. 246-279), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richmond, B. O. (1966). Creativity in monozygotic and dyzygotic’ twins. Retrieved from ERIC

http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED109580

Runco, M. A. (1994). Creativity and its discontents. In M. Shaw and M. Runco (Eds.), Creativity and

affect (pp. 102-126). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. NewYork: Elsevier

Academic Press.

Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (1986). The threshold theory regarding creativity and intelligence: An

empirical test with gifted and nongifted children, The Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 11, 212–

218.

Runco, M. A., Millar, G., Acar, S., & Cramond, B. (2010). Torrance tests of creative thinking as

predictors of personal and public achievement: A fifty-year follow- up, Creativity Research Journal,

22(4), 361-368, doi:10.1080/10400419.2010.523393.

Russ, S. W. (1998). Affect, creative experience and psychological adjustment. Ann Arbor, MI: Braun-

Brumfield.

Sak, U. (2004). A Synthesis of research on psychological types of gifted adolescents. The Journal of

Secondary Gifted Education, 15(2), 70-79.

Sak, U. (2007). Giftedness and the Turkish culture. In S. N. Philipson and M. McCann (Eds.).

Conceptions of giftedness: Socio-cultural perspectives (pp. 283-310). London: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

196

Sak, U. (2009). Gifted education programs. Ankara: Maya Publishing.

Sak, U. (2014). Growth and development creativity. Ankara: Vize Publishing.

Sanchez–Ruiz, M. J., Hernandez–Torrano D., Perez–Gonzalez, J. C., Batey, M., & Petrides, K. V. (2011).

The relationship between trait emotional intelligence and creativity across subject domains.

Motivation and Emotion, 35(4), 461-473, doi:10.1007/s11031-011-9227-8.

Saranlı, A. G., & Metin, N. (2012). Social – emotional problems observed in gifted children. Ankara

Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 45(1), 139-163.

Silvia, P. L. (2008). Creativity and intelligence revisited: A latent variable analysis of Wallach and

Kogan (1965), Creativity Research Journal, 20(1), 34-39, doi:10.1080/10400410701841807

Silvia, P. J., Wigert, B., Reiter-Palmon, R.,, & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Assessing creativity with self-

report scales: A review and empirical evaluation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,

6(1), 19-34.

Singh, Y., & Sharma, R. (2012). Relationship between general intelligence, emotional intelligence,

stress levels and stress reactivity. Ann Neurosci, 19(3), 107-111, doi:10.5214/ans.0972.7531.190304.

Shiyko, M. P., Ram, N., & Grimm, K. J. (2012). An overview of growth mixture modeling a simple

nonlinear application in openmx. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.) Handbook of structural equation modeling,

(pp. 532-546), New York: Guilford Press.

Sligh, A. C., Conners, F. A., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, B. (2005). Relation of creativity to fluid and

crystallized intelligence. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 123-136, doi:10.1002/j.2162-

6057.2005.tb01254.x

Soldz, S., & Vaillant, G. E. (1999). The big five personality traits and the life course: A 45- year

longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 33(2), 208-232.

Solomon, A. O. (1967). A comparative analysis of creative and intelligent behavior of elementary school

children with different socio-economic backgrounds. Final progress report. Retrieved from ERIC

http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED017022

Spearman, C. (1904). General intelligence. Objectively determined and mesaured. The American Journal

of Psychology, 15, 201-292.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human

Development, 34, 1-32.

Şahin, F., (2014). The relationship between creativity and intelligence: New evidence. Elementary

Education Online, 13(4), 1516-1530, doi:10.17051/io.2014.02374

Şahin, F. (2015a). A Research on the structure of intelligence and creativity, and creativity style,

Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education, 5(1), 2-20.

Şahin, F. (2015b, May 13-15). Kaufman Alanları Yaratıcılık Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye uyarlanması ve

psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi. Presented at the International Congress on Education for the

Future Congre: Issues and Challenges, Ankara

Şahin, F. (2015c). Adaptation of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale into Turkish and

examination of its psychometric properties. Elementary Education Online (Special Issue), (Inreview).

Şahin, F., & Kargın, T. (2013). The effect of a training programme on teachers’ knowledge on

identification of talented students by primary school teachers. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri

Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 14(2), 1-23.

Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1976). Genetic studies of genius: Volume IV, the gifted child grows up

twenty–five years’ follow – up of a superior group, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Vantassel-Baska, J. (1998). Characteristics and needs of talented learners, In J. Vantassel-Baska (Ed.).

Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners, (pp. 173-191), Colorado: Love Publishing.

Virgolim, A. M. (2005). Creativity and intelligence: A study of Brazilian gifted and talanted students

(Unpublished doctoral thesis). Universitiy of Connecticut.

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

197

Wolfradt, U., Felfe, J., & Köster, T. (2002). Self-perceived emotional intelligence and creative

personality, Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 21(4), 293-309.

Yakmacı-Güzel, B. (2002). Üstün yeteneklilerin belirlenmesinde yardımcı yeni bir yaklaşım: Dabrowski’nin

aşırı duyarlılık alanları (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). İstanbul University Institute of

Educational Sciences, İstanbul.

Yoon, S. (2005). Comparing the intelligence and creativity scores of Asian American gifted students with

Caucasian gifted students (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Purdue University.

Ziegler, A., & Heller, K. A. (2000). Conceptions of giftedness from a meta-theoretical perspective, In A.

K. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg and R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness

and talented (pp. 3-22) Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner.
Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Writerbay.net

Do you need help with this or a different assignment? We offer CONFIDENTIAL, ORIGINAL (Turnitin/LopesWrite/SafeAssign checks), and PRIVATE services using latest (within 5 years) peer-reviewed articles. Kindly click on ORDER NOW to receive an A++ paper from our masters- and PhD writers.

Get a 15% discount on your order using the following coupon code SAVE15


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper